Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Disrupting editing of filmographies, films, actors[edit]

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

Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross. WP:FILMOGRAPHY says Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

Diffs and talk page links

Examples of unsourced/poorly sourced additions:

Talk pages are littered with warnings:

Note: this appears to be the same editor who was on this range:

Select examples: [23] [24] [25] [26]

I think they need a timeout.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have resumed their chronic disruptive editing at:
  • unsourced change to the date of a film's release: [27] and [28]
  • Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs [29]
Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More unsourced edits [30] [31] [32] from:
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continuing unsourced edits contrary to WP:FILMOGRAPHY: [33] from:
How about a short-term block on 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42 ?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More from today [34] [35] from:
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More: [36] [37] [38] [39] from:
Note that edits in this range picked up minutes after another IP that geolocates to the same area was notified of an ANI discussion about the same disruptive editing behavior. [40]. That IP was subsequently blocked: [41].
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More: [42] from
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:AIV? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I considered it but have observed that editors are often reminded that AIV is only for "obvious vandalism" or "obvious spam". The "unsourced editing" I have identified above is not spam and does not appear (to me at least) to fit the definition of vandalism. Also WP:VANDAL says: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
In any event, HJ Mitchell took action earlier today to block the /42 for two weeks, so this topic can be closed as far as I am concerned.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 23:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh[edit]

Freoh (talk · contribs) is a relatively new editor, from August of last year. Since then, a pattern of disruptive/gaslighting editing has become obvious. The most recent is at Rayleigh–Jeans law, an article which they never really edited and suddenly got involved into a debate without understanding the basics of it, mostly about whether or not it should be included in the category Category:Obsolete theories in physics. From the article, it should be patently obvious that it is (and certainly is obvious to any physicist). The Rayleigh–Jeans law was an attempt to characterize radiation emitted by black bodies, and it was known since its inception that the law was inadequate. This was called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe.

Some other editor removed the longstanding category, I reverted since this is known obsolete since its very inception in 1900s. Then the insanity starts where Freoh tags the category as uncited. This is patently false, Ref 1 explicitly states RJ is obsolete

When physicists tried to apply classical ideas of radiation, they could not derive blackbody spectra that agreed with the experimental results. The classical calculations yielded an intensity I(ν,T) given by

This is known as the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. [...] The Rayleigh–Jeans Law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies (long wavelenghts), but disagrees at high frequencies. [...] (The classical prediction of arbitrarily large energies at high frequencies was sometimes referred to as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. ) [...] In 1900, Max Planck, a German physicist produced an empirical formula that accurately describes the experimental blackbody spectra:

Emphasis mine. RJ was obsolete back in 1900. This was not good enough for Freoh, who keeps demanding sources and writes.

Headbomb stated that "this is cited" in the article, but I do not see where. I am not taking a side here on whether or not it is obsolete, just ensuring that the information in this article is verifiable.

On the talk page, the following additional source was provided, after Ref 1 was (again) pointed out

We remember the Rayleigh–Jeans law as an incorrect hypothesis superseded by that of Planck.

Freoh then writes:

XOR'easter, that looks like a good source to me. I would not be opposed to re-adding Category:Obsolete theories in physics along with a cited sentence to this effect

Emphasis mine.

Thinking we have finally reached agreement, I reinstate the category, which Freoh reverts again demanding a source, and then warning me about their disappointment of me supposedly refusing to provide a source. A source which they already agreed exists, was provided, and supports that category, and which they themselves deemed good and sufficient to re-add the category.

This is gaslighting WP:NOTHERE behaviour of the highest order. Similar behaviour was also seen at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States and many other places as evidenced by User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023 and User talk:Freoh#NPOV debates.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:
  • approximations are used in physics and science all the time
  • when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
  • the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete
What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page. Dllahr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrong even at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking the luminiferous aether. XOR'easter explains why further on the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @XOR'easter, Ancheta Wis, Thebiguglyalien, Andrew Lancaster as others who had similar run-ins with Freoh recently for their opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop the WP:STICK. All of the discussions and RfCs opened by Freoh follow a cycle of proposing fundamental changes about the approach of the article, multiple editors explaining why it's not viable, and a subsequent back-and-forth.
In addition to what Headbomb mentioned at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, Talk:Science, and Talk:Constitution of the United States (where according to Xtools, Freoh has written 87,455 bytes, almost entirely on a single WP:1AM issue over the last four months), this has also happened at Talk:James Madison, Talk:Civilization, and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of Rayleigh-Jeans law, all of these also have a strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. His project is WP:countering systemic bias, according to a participant list.
  2. The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
  3. I think we handled Talk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --
Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring on Rayleigh-Jeans law, but they only have one single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention. Larataguera (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Larataguera: we sadly can't ignore it, because this behaviour occurs across the board on Science, on Raileigh Jeans Law, and elsewhere. That "only" two reverts happened on that page is immaterial. What matters is that discussion is impossible with them because they read words differently than everyone else, then revert consensus when they've agreed to it. And that's on top of the other behaviour highlighted like accusing people of espousing white supremacist views when they say the ancient Greeks has an important role to play in the history of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count as cited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freoh reverted the re-addition of the category while pointing to a guideline that says the correct course of action is to add the {{unreferenced category}} template. I'm significantly more baffled by the remarks from earlier this month to the effect that it's racist/white supremacist to say that the ancient Greeks were important for the history of science [43]. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was pinged here, and like User:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm familiar with the very long discussion at Talk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out by Larataguera above) can simply choose to not engage. Paul August 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paul August: He appears to also be tag bombing articles and reverting BRD notices while editing main pages, as he did with Dhtwiki on the James Madison article for several weeks. Binkster, in his comments below here seems to be stating that this has been the long-term edit conduct of Freoh in his edit history. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that this is a misunderstanding, Headbomb, and I wish that you would assume good faith and try to reach a consensus rather than edit warring and taking this to WP:AN/I and WP:RFPP. I do not think that the text currently in the article supports the idea that this law is obsolete, only that Planck's law is more accurate. (As Dllahr pointed out, these are not the same thing.) I do not understand why you are so opposed to clarifying this point, and you might benefit from reading the advice for hotheads.      — Freoh 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"this is a misunderstanding"
Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after you explicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have previously explained at the article talk page and my talk page, a citation in the talk page is insufficient for verifiability, and I said that I would not object to the category being restored along with a cited sentence.      — Freoh 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not just add whatever sentence you wanted yourself? I'd like to understand, but I'm at a loss here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then perhaps, we might "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"— This is an invitation for some of us to go to the problem page to perhaps work things out? OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, per WP:CATV Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. It is entirely sufficient to establish things on the talk page, so long as the article gives an indication as to why a category might be there. The article clearly explains that RJ was supplanted by Planck in 1900s, which is plenty sufficient to support the addition of the category (on top of the existing refs which support the same). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the time, I chose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material.      — Freoh 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list of users who are arguably involved in some way with the Freoh situation, as Thebiguglyalien points out, spans far more individuals and articles than have been included and notified here, and with that in mind I think this ANI report may be premature and of too limited scope. Of respected editors, Doug_Weller immediately comes to mind and commented on this on Headbomb's talk page.

I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links to WP:DISRUPT against everyone they disagree with) and to themselves be a situation of probably something along the lines of WP:PUSH. The user, to be honest, seems to openly have contempt for anything to do with "white men" and feels like merely using that label is a sound argument against inclusion (e.g. the ancient greeks were white men, so their contributions to science should ipso facto be downplayed).

That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be very WP:IDHT and WP:STICK and to continue plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others. Even when I partially agree with them, and offer some middle ground compromises, they do not seem to understand how to take advantage of that or collaborate.

I think Freoh is more of a wait and see situation, and where one should compile a list over time of examples of behavioral problems for a single comprehensive ANI report that covers all these articles and behaviors. Maybe Freoh will learn how to be a good wikipedian, or maybe their personality and approach are just unfit for this place, but I think it is too early to say - or at any rate, it would need much more thorough documentation and wider input than this report is going to get, which is actually counterproductive in getting Freoh dealt with. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to what DIYeditor and S Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now. Paul August 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you explain why you characterize my behavior as plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation in Talk:Constitution of the United States about how to discuss the People:
  • I listened to Allreet when they opposed my use of footnotes to clarify who the People were, so I made a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
  • I listened to ONUnicorn when they pointed out that I was blurring the lines between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who ratified it, and the people who voted for delegates, so I made a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
  • I listened to Dhtwiki when they complained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so I made a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressing ONUnicorn's concerns.
  • I listened to you, DIYeditor, when you recommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so I edited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
  • I listened to you again when you suggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so I made a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
  • I listened to BogLogs when they argued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so I made another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
  • I listened to Gwillhickers when he argued against making a vague reference to the people as a whole, so I made an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
  • I listened to Randy Kryn when he wanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so I made another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.
This conversation has gone on so long because of my substantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying to compromise rather than status quo stonewalling. I know that I am in a minority among editors, but I have been taking the opinions of others into consideration when trying to reach a consensus, and I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong.      — Freoh 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that point WP:LETTINGITBE probably works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to go a lot slower and be a lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at the the failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talk first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself as a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "SJW" is not a good argument against Freoh any more than their "white men" argument holds water as a reason to diminish or remove something from an article. These need to be framed in an appropriate Wikipedia behavior and Wikipedia content fashion. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that cuts both ways. Feeling that their calling is to address "institutional bias" or whatever is not a reason to block Freoh from editing. In fact, many would say it's a needed role on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gaslighting continued[edit]

Actually, ErnestKrause's comment is right to the point, as from what I've seen in a number of cases Freoh has exhibited SJW behavior in several ways, esp when, on the Talk page, he referred to the atomic bombings in WWii Japan, which ended the war, as a "terrorist attack", a fringe POV that none of the sources resort to. Also, your statement that Freoh's activity is needed to correct "institutional bias" presents its own acute bias, and only encourages this editor to continue with this behavior. In any event, I agree that WP should not be used as a battleground, and this is indeed why this ANI involving Freoh is occurring, as explained by numerous editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Freoh changed the infobox template from "military conflict" (which it had been since 2010 when I put it in) to "civilian attack". Freoh was reverted and started a talk page discussion which attracted strong opposition to Freoh's suggested change. Nevertheless, Freoh tendentiously changed it back, asserting a consensus: "I've seen a few talk page comments in favor of this infobox proposal, and none opposed". That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good to identify behaviors that indicate WP:CPUSH, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:ADVOCACY issues. It's not good to label an editor in what appears to be a derogatory manner. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm uncomfortable using the third person, so I'll be direct. Freoh, responding to others is not the same as listening to what they have to say. Above, you gave examples of your willingness to make compromises. Certain things, however, do not lend themselves to compromise: specifically, the fact that Wikipedia's focus is determined by the prevailing view, meaning what most mainstream sources have to say. I've pointed this out several times, in several different ways, and I'm certain you haven't listened; otherwise, I wouldn't have to repeat myself. And to be even clearer: You say you listened to what I said about footnotes, yet changing them to text wasn't a compromise, just another tact, since the message and its effect were essentially the same. Allreet (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It gets back to the ability to collaborate. Freoh doesn't really seem to understand how to work with others and this I think gets into CIR territory, but it premature to claim such here in ANI. I'm not sure what the respondents here want done about Freoh. A warning? For what exactly? Let's move on to either in depth evidence supporting some stronger action, or wording on a "warning", or just drop this, because I don't think we are going anywhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comment from Binkster directly above just stated that the long term harsh edit conduct of Freoh is described as: "That's the kind of falsehood others have been complaining about, and it makes me think Freoh is not able to collaborate at all." ErnestKrause (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A warning? For what exactly?  ( ? ! )  Numerous editors have said essentially the same thing and have provided detailed examples involving a lot of time and articles, and thus far there hasn't even been an acknowledgment from Freoh that there's an issue, other than, I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freoh: Tens of thousands of words, literally hundreds of hours, have been wasted over the past three and a half months on issues you've raised that have little to no basis. Here are a few detailed examples:

  • I just pointed out that Georgia and South Carolina relied heavily on slavery..., and you contended this amounted to ambiguous synecdoche. Clearly, you don't understand the guidelines related to the term. The states and their governments are synonymous in this context, and we don't need to distinguish one from the other.
  • In illustrating a point about vagueness, I cited a passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and you said you wouldn't be opposed to some of this information, meaning you would oppose other parts. That puts you at odds with Joseph Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who oversees the encyclopedia's articles on the Constitution.
  • You contended we should be presenting a global perspective on the Constitution. Aside from a minor tweak, I have no idea what that might mean, but I do know we're accurately reporting the viewpoints of leading historians.
  • Most scholars generally concur with Yale historian Akhil Reed Amar that in the late 1780s the Constitution was "the most democratic deed the world had ever seen" (America's Constitution: A Biography, page 5), as exemplified by the Preamble's opening words We the People. Yet you've called our section on the Preamble and its emphasis on this phrase vague and misleading, even though what we've stated is consistent with the mainstream view.
  • We just concluded a five-week RfC where S Marshall ruled no changes should be made to the Constitution article without first seeking a consensus. Despite the finding, you deleted a full paragraph in the Preamble section a couple days ago. While your deletion has since been reverted, you continue to argue that your edit was justified.

What I see here is a combination of incompetence—a lack of understanding of WP's guidelines, values, and methods—and an unwillingness to heed what others tell you about them. Perhaps a formal warning will make this clear to you. If not, then IMO a topic ban should be imposed. Allreet (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formal warning[edit]

I propose that Freoh be formally warned that they must:

  1. significantly improve their collaboration
  2. demonstrate an ability to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here)
  3. drop the WP:STICK and not plow ahead when a discussion has gone against them, or perpetually prolong discussions that have gained no traction with other editors
  4. not try to concoct "consensus" from thin air on the premise that it is not a vote to use as a pretext for unilateral action on an article
  5. understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus and not WP:TRUTH or what is right
  6. tone down this aggressive piped linking of Wikipedia: space policies/guideliens/essays in disagreements with other editors until Freoh gains more experience and understanding themself

and that if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not clear what you are supporting since Freoh appears to have already stated above that: " I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong." Freoh has not acknowledged a single comments made in this list and I'm not sure what your support means given his comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the general outline. That list of your six items above is, after reading it again, really a very strong criticism of Freoh and his edit disruptions over months and months; I mean that if another editor where accused of even half of those disruptions then everyone would be talking about a possible block of an editor like Freoh for a day, or a week, or even a month. I'm not for being excessive on this, but your 6 point criticism of Freoh really portrays him as being somewhat extreme in his disruptions of Wikipedia over the last several months. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For that matter, there could've been a 7. avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs, or something like that, or even more items. It can be difficult to precisely define what the problems have been.
    I do think some acknowledgement of the issues and this warning would be appropriate, but I don't think it would be necessary to have any duration of block given such acknowledgement, even a brief acknowledgement. Not everyone "gets" Wikipedia right away. To me it's better to say "stop this general behavior, or it will be a longer topic ban, or block" than to shut out a new user right off the bat. I'm not sure what purpose a brief block would serve other than punitive. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support — Actually, the six items are points of good advice, not criticisms, given the endless arguing, (which is still in progress in at least two articles) reckless handling of an RfC he initiated, tag bombing and often times, multiple reverts (still in progress). And yes, this involves many articles over months and months indeed, and in some cases with obvious SJW behavior, in spite of his subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion, all of which makes his activity on the extreme side, though, albeit, I've seen worse behavior. In any case, we are still not seeing any acknowledgement from this editor, so I'm inclined to go for a topic ban, at least on American history articles, but no more than 30 days, this time.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I (and Thebiguglyalien) mentioned above, I don't think it is constructive or appropriate to use labels such as "SJW" which is pejorative. There are many good editors who are sympathetic to "social justice" political views and who would no doubt like to see what they believe to be bias in major articles addressed. I think we should phrase this instead as WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SJW, which there is a WP article to which you linked, can be either pejorative or complimentary, as the case may be, and the way it has been used here was a reference to behavior, as are BATTLEGROUND and ADVOCACY behavior, – not exactly name calling inasmuch as terms like Liar or Thief. In any case, I will desist from using the term, which I didn't even know existed until someone else introduced it here, so as not to futher side-track attention away from the issue here at ANI. Just for the record, "Social justice" is a two way street. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does this canvassing look like it might be trolling [44] or something? Hard to tell what the point of all of it would be. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh's edit conduct with Dhtwiki on the James Madison page (which was just linked by DIYeditor) was very odd from before, which suggests that your concern for that canvassing should be examined. Also, it should be noted that Freoh appears to be ignoring the very generous offer made by DIYeditor above and appears to have no interest in the comments made by DIYeditor; its a large difference if Freoh acknowledges the issues which DIYeditor has raised or if he ignores them. If he ignores them, then something may need to be done in addition to a low-level courtesy warning as stated by DIYeditor. Its possible that Freoh has already calculated that he will be given something like a 'free pass' by sysops on this ANI because Freoh may think that his hobby of editing Wikipedia articles about "Quantum computing" are highly valued by sysops at this time. Its different if Freoh acknowledges the issues raised by DIYeditor, than if he continues to ignore them without acknowledgment. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support It is clear that Freoh has irreconcilable WP:IDHT behavior issues in several topic areas. I am still concerned that the scope of this proposal is still excessively broad — since most of the science-related disruptive behavior is specific to human history, the term science should probably be dropped at the end. Also, since all of their problematic behavior involves discussions related to article sourcing or analysis of sources w.r.t. the article topic, a better alternative would be to ban Freoh from participating in discussions related to third-party sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Upon further review of the US Constitution talk page, I am convinced that the topic ban from American politics and history is still needed, since at least the earlier comments are primarily about NPOV and show that Freoh has a strong left-wing bias on this topic. Nowhere is this as self-evident as in the edit that started the round of discussion, where they amended wording in the article to refer to wealthy elites and to imperial subjects [of the United States] as a term for the insular areas, and asserted that the Preamble to the US Constitution pretends that the [United States] government stands for everyone. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was initially content with a warning, because everyone deserves a second chance. Based on the lame defense Freoh has just offered and the behavior noted below regarding the Constitution article (see my comments and Gwillhickers's), I agree with you that a ban is justified. Allreet (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Response. I am aware that I am often in the minority among Wikipedia editors, but the personal attacks here are disappointing. Most of these conflicts have been my attempts to uphold Wikipedia's second and third pillars. The dispute at Talk:Constitution of the United States is my attempt to make the article more neutral by avoiding stating opinions as facts, especially those with widespread disagreement. The dispute at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law was my attempt to ensure that Dllahr (a relative newcomer) feels that their voice is heard in the face of passive aggression from experienced editors unwilling to engage in a reasonable discussion. I am sorry that this rubs some of you the wrong way, but I assure you that I am acting in good faith, and I assume that the same is true of all of you. I agree with DIYeditor that these disputes are not battles for anyone to win, and we are all ultimately here on the same team. With that in mind, I will respond to each of your demands.
    1. I am still learning the best ways to collaborate, but feel free to leave a message on my talk page. A few concrete points:
      • I see now that I have upset some people with my use of contentious labels within talk pages. I will try to avoid these in the future.
      • There have been a couple times when someone removed a cleanup template I had added, and my response was to then remove the tagged content. I have learned my lesson, and in the future I will instead re-add the tag and discuss these issues in the talk page.
      • I see that some of my comments have been unclear and at first glance contradictory, leading to the gaslighting charge. I will work on phrasing problems more clearly.
    2. The other people here have called me names, tried to drive me away, and repeatedly re-added disputed material without consensus [45] [46]. I do not and will not emulate this behavior. If you have other suggestions, please leave a message at my talk page.
    3. It is not my goal to perpetually prolong discussions. I usually make it clear exactly which changes would end the discussion, and as Larataguera said earlier, these discussions can simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage. These conversations have dragged on for a while because I have spent a significant amount of time asking clarifying questions to understand the points of view of other editors, and then making new compromise proposals that try to address everyone's concerns. These are not subtle attempts to dress this up as simple discussion; I am honestly discussing these issues. I am getting a better sense of where my perspective differs from others', and I will take S Marshall's advice to heart and go slower and be more succinct. I will also spend more time on my responses, especially on concrete proposals rather than abstract criticisms, so that the editors I am arguing with can feel more heard. I think that these conversations might also end sooner if some of you were willing to meet me in the middle and try to understand my concerns and make your own compromise proposals.
    4. I never try to concoct "consensus" from thin air. I am aware that in many of these cases, we have not yet reached a consensus, and my edits are only attempts at reaching an edit consensus after I have better understood the concerns of other editors. I admit that I was off-base in some cases, so if you would like, I can spend more time on the D before cycling back to the B of BRD.
    5. I do understand that Wikipedia reflects only prevailing scholarly consensus. I have focused my efforts on cases where there is no clear prevailing scholarly consensus, and I have always backed this up with tier 1 sources. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, which is why I have pushed back against Allreet's vague and controversial content about how the people and not the states were the source of the government's legitimacy.
    6. Piped linking is not aggressive. If you feel that I am lacking in experience and understanding, then feel free to explain.
    7. I have made no insinuations that other editors may have heinous beliefs. It is possible to criticize the undue weight that an editor is giving to white people without calling them a white supremacist. I do not believe that Headbomb is a white supremacist, but I do believe that he may have been influenced by systemic bias. Every editor is biased (myself included), and every source is biased (mine included). LaundryPizza03, I made those edits a while ago, and I was still learning Wikipedia's neutrality policies and using wording from my sources, but I think that I have improved since then.
TL;DR: Contrary to what some of you believe, I have been trying to have real discussions about good faith disagreements, and you are welcome to advise me on my talk page. I apologize for upsetting people and for being inefficient and unclear in some of these conversations, and I will work on this.  — Freoh 19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This ANI is about your consistent and ongoing conduct, and now you're trying to drag in many of the same subjects you've been involved with in the apparent hope that we will forever be going over these things, yet again. e.g.Making the same claims about the Constitution, etc. This only tells us you've ignored the well thought out explanations of multiple editors who took the time to address your never ending contentions. Iow, all you've really done here, regardless of your apology and one acknowledgment, is to exemplify your WP:IDHT behavior, because you're still pushing many of the same issues all over again, only now it's in this forum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh, is back at the Constitution of the United States article and has just tagged the Preamble section with another one of his POV tags, which I reverted, as he was already turned down at the RfC he initiated. So much for his apology. At this point this editor clearly needs to be topic banned from US history articles, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh, in what amounts to a non-apology apology, is blaming other editors for most everything while accepting very little personal responsibility for the situations created. Meanwhile, the recent RfC, which ruled against Freoh's proposals regarding the U.S. Constitution article, warned editors that any changes to this article would need rough consensus before they could be made. Despite this ruling, Freoh forged ahead with adding a POV tag to the article today. What's astounding is that they did so while a vote was in progress to determine whether a community consensus favored such a tag. Frankly, I'm appalled anyone would act this way in the midst of an ANI regarding their behavior, and thus I agree with Gwillhickers that a topic ban is justified. Allreet (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. This ANI is about to roll over into archive without any action taken by sysops; is the assumption that this Freoh thread may roll over into archive without any sysops action. As I mentioned earlier in response to the 6-point chart presented by DIYeditor, then if any other editor than Freoh had committed even half of the disruptions listed in that chart then a possible ban of a day, a week, or even a month would be discussed among participating editors. Pinging the last last three respondents here before the chart was added by DIYeditor for a second opinion on the appropriate level of response for either of Topic ban, Page ban, Editor block, etc.: (@Randy Kryn, Binksternet, S Marshall, and Doug Weller:). I've already stated that I'm not for being extreme on this matter, and the comments from the 3-4 previous respondents I've just pinged would be useful to hear for their own opinions and their own viewpoints. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This response is tone-deaf.
  • always backed this up with tier 1 sources Tier 1 according to you, in a WP:1AM way since these sources' reliability regularly gets rejected by others, or show signs of cherry-picking/misalignment with overall scholarship (see the entire U.S. Constitution talk page). At Science, you presented six sources but seemed to misunderstand all of them, since none actually supported your claims (having the "cognitive foundations of science" does not mean practicing science, which should be obvious).
  • You've accused others of edit-warring, but that is largely caused by your own behaviour. Your approach to attempts at reaching an edit consensus consist of repeatedly boldly inserting material or tags into articles (which you frame as "compromises"), forcing others to either give up and let it stay, or continue arguing with you. It's classic bludgeoning.
The fundamental problem, in these repeated WP:1AM discussions, is that we end up with that we end up with threads with 30+, 50+, sometimes 100+ comments debating your suggestions, and those suggestions wouldn't even improve the encyclopedia or reduce systemic bias, they'd just introduce fringe or poorly sourced claims into our articles. I support the general outline. DFlhb (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the discussions at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States, and Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, and in none of those was Freoh 1AM. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see gaslighting or a chronically disruptive user. I see a new user getting essentially bullied by more experienced editors who disagree about content disputes. For example, look at the edit warring warnings on Freoh's talk page, then look at the page histories and behold how there is no edit warring. It's not inherently problematic to challenge the use of the term "obsolete" to describe an outdated scientific theory. I don't see any problem with the Constitution RFC (the points Freoh raised are legitimate, per RS, and I agree they should be addressed in the article, although the problem is how). I don't see a problem with suggesting that the US' nuking of two cities in WWII were attacks on civilians, not military targets, and even the suggestion that they be described as state terrorism is reasonable, and supported by some RSes. (It's not the mainstream view, but it's not fringe, either.) I'd change my mind if someone showed diffs of actual edit warring, or misrepresenting sources, or personal attacks, etc. Maybe there's something more I'm missing here, but so far all I see is disagreement, and disagreement is not disruptive. And I certainly don't see any "gaslighting" by Freoh at all (that accusation seems like an aspersion to me). Levivich (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freoh is not a new user, although their present account is fairly new. See their talk page for mention of a vanishing of a previous account (for similar reasons as are complained about here?). That makes sense, since they have a knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that is rather extraordinary for a new user. Gaslighting didn't seem as right to me as does Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in terms of categorizing Freoh's actions. If you are looking at only the RfC at Constitution of the United States, then you might look at earlier discussions with me where Freoh's persistence in wanting to make changes without consensus developing was pretty much the equivalent of edit warring, if not in actual fact. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Taking into account all the evidence I see here, I do not feel that Freoh's behaviour has risen to the level where a logged warning would be needful.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pinging involved editors:   @Levivich, Marshall, ErnestKrause, Allreet, Randy Kryn, Dhtwiki, LaundryPizza03, Thebiguglyalien, Headbomb, and Thebiguglyalien:
    @Hawkeye7: additional ping.
    — Levivich, multiple editors have said basically the same thing about Freoh's conduct, (habitual use of tagging, reverts with WP:IDHT and lengthy, repetitious and endless talk that has gone on for many weeks - and to lump all the involved editors together as a bunch of "bullies", simply picking on a new user, is not a very fair characterization of these editors.
    Just for the record, no one denies that mostly civilians died during the bombing, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military industrial cities, turning out weapons of war on a massive scale, where most of the weapons testing was conducted, all of which were engineered and manufactured by "civilians", and which would have extended the war indefinitely, costing more lives than were lost during the bombing. Freoh, who referred to the bombings as a "terrorist attack", wishes to focus on civilians, i.e.Civil POV pushing, while he ignores these facts, and when these things were explained to him by several editors he simply refused to acknowledge the point, and continued with lengthy talk, i,e.gaslighting.This is just one example. On the US Constitution page, he deleted a major portion of the Preamble section Diff with very little talk and no consensus, calling it a compromise. When this text was restored, he again made the same basic major deletion, Diff, with no discussion. Again this was restored by yet another editor. During this time, he POV tagged this section three times Diff1, Diff2, Diff3. The third attempt to POV tag came after he apologized to us (see above). I'll let other editors present the diffs they were involved with if they must. This editor clearly needs at least a stiff warning, if not a topic ban on American history articles, for at least 30 days.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd personally argue for an indef ban on anything history related, very broadly construed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Headbomb: The opening sentence of your original start of this thread stated that Freoh is a new editor, but Dhtwiki is now telling us above that Freoh is not a new editor and that he had a previous account. Does this have an up or down effect on your comments about his editing practices being discussed here? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has little effect honestly. Since this ANI thread began, they got warned twice for 3RR stuff about very much the same behaviour under discussion here. If this is a returning editor from a clean start, it does not bode well, and what little good faith we could assume goes straight out the window. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ErnestKrause, I believe this user has had numerous previous accounts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently Allreet and Gwillhickers were targets of Awolf's. Does this new behavior fit the pattern? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. Awolf's behavior was outright vandalism, repeatedly, with different IP's, unlike Freoh's, who never targeted us specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similar behavior, similar topic areas, etc. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Perhaps an administrator can see if Freoh geolocates to the San Francisco Bay area as well? @Tamzin, you've dealt with this editor in the past. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Bgsu98. I'm rather bemused by this one. Comng into conflict with Allreet and Gw, and for that matter Randy Kryn, matches the Awolf MO, as does interest in foundational U.S. articles and broad-concept articles in general. On the other hand, interest in quantum computing is totally new AFAIK, and we're missing a lot of Awolf tells. On the third hand, I did tell Awolf a while back that if he was going to keep socking, he might as well pick a new topic and edit quietly, so maybe he's followed at least the first half of that "advice"... but I've learned a fair bit about Awolf and quantum computing really isn't the secret previously-unmentioned interest I'd expect him to have (especially since, AFAIK, he doesn't edit in the topic area he actually works in, which would seem a more logical place to quietly return). Oh and on a fourth hand, there's a significant overlap here with the GreenCows sockfarm... but on the other side ideologically. Blablubbs, do you have any thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin, I have never filed a sockpuppet report before, but if you think it's appropriate to look into, I will. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll give Blablubbs the chance to respond, since he's a CU familiar with both the Awolf and GreenCows cases. If he's unavailable, I can handle SPI. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Acknowledging that I've seen the ping. I should be able to take a look later today, and hopefully no later than tomorrow. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tamzin, please tell me what Coming into conflict with Allreet and Gw means regarding a past editor's "MO"? I don't feel targeted, so to speak, as much as sucked into an abyss where my good faith has been taken advantage of, so some insight would be helpful for moving forward. I did look up Awolf58's past discussions and their writing tone and argumentation style are a carbon copy of Freoh's. Also note the date of the ban, August 5 2022, and the start of new account. August 12. All just coincidental? Could be, but the circumstantial evidence appears substantial enough to warrant a closer look. Allreet (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having read through this I agree. I’m also concerned about the “clean start” issue. Doug Weller talk 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm needing to go along with Dhtwiki and Doug Weller that the 'clean start' issue in a concern. Does Dhtwiki have the link which shows that Freoh has stated, using his new 'clean start' account, that he had a previous account or accounts at Wikipedia? Does Freoh state which Wikipedia articles he may have previously edited or modified at Wikipedia under the previous accounts before opening his new 'clean start' account? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text on their talk page is: "I will say that this is not my first Wikipedia account, and I was somewhat successful on a previous account before a clean start with this one." That doesn't mean that they were blocked for disruption, especially as they freely admitted the previous account's existence. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One would have to wonder why this editor felt it was necessary to get a fresh start in the first place. "...somewhat successful on a previous account"? Without knowing the user name of the previous account I can only assume, all the (many) things considered, it wasn't because he was well received by fellow editors -- somewhat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could also mean that the account revealed too much personal information, among other possibilities. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything is possible, but probable? If he was that concerned about revealing personal information I doubt he would of put much of it out there in the first place. Very few editors use their real name, and I've never seen anyone put their address, or phone number or eMail address, place of employment, etc out there, so realistically, it was likely because he was taken to task for the same reasons a dozen or so editors have done so over this latest account. In any case, this should not weigh in on whether a topic ban is imposed. We should only use the facts to do that, and there are plenty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe a two weeks history topic ban, 30 days is pretty steep and a couple of weeks will give all of the editors who are trying to reason together through tens of thousands of words a break for 14 days to go on about their business of improving the place (some very good sources have emerged from all of this though). There may or may not be another reverting-needing-talk-page-discussion situation shaping up at Mount Rushmore (trying to downgrade and now actually mock its alternate name "Shrine of Democracy", which is what the statue's sculptor and many others called and call it) which could use more readers, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: I agree Freoh needs to be given a choice between changing their behavior to become a good Wikipedia citizen, or face the risk of getting booted. In comparison to some of these examples, the current discussion over at Talk:Civilization_(disambiguation)#Complex_and_advanced is not nearly as troublesome (being merely tedious, repetitive and unconstructive), but still - Freoh does not appear willing or able to a) heed advice and/or b) let things go. Specific points of concern include #1, #2, #6 and especially #3, in my opinion (I'm an involved party of that discussion). CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. It seems timely to bring up the question of whether someone can request a sysops comment for this ANI discussion which is very near to rolling over into archive. I've previously stated that I'm not for extreme measures here, though Freoh not responding to the many editors here who have commented on his using other accounts, along with his admission to Dhtwiki of having a second account is something of a let down. This Noticeboard discussion seems to need someone from sysops to assess this; Freoh seems to be completely avoiding this Noticeboard discussion after the admission to Dhtwiki of having a second account and is currently editing the Constitution article as if nothing is taking place here. I'm rarely at this Noticeboard here and do not know if a request for sysops closing can be placed on the Noticeboard for "Closure requests" before this discussion here rolls over into archive without being assessed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freoh didn't admit anything *to* me. I merely gained that information by reading through their talk, and I don't want it to imply anything nefarious unless it can be undoubtedly proven to be so. I don't see Freoh as the same editor as AWolf, for example. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to close this ANI?[edit]

As I said above, it seems that Freoh and Awolf are not the same editor, as the latter was involved in flagrant vandalism, repeatedly, whereas Freoh is not. However, he just POV tagged the the Preamble section in the Constitution article for the forth time, where yet another editor reverted it with a reminder that consensus was not on his side, which apparently he refuses to accept. This has been going on for some time now, keeping the article in a constant disruptive and unstable state. A week or so ago I was somewhat undecided about a topic ban and would have been satisfied with a stern warning, but that has changed, ast it seems he has no intention of complying with consensus and continues to ignore reasonable discussions from a good number of editors, and this is just one article. At this stage it would seem nothing short of a 30 day topic ban is called for, as some dozen editors have chimed in with the same basic concerns over his behavior. It seems like it's about time to close this ANI with a decision so everyone can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the issue of identity is now the question of the hour. It's possible, maybe likely, we're talking about two different people, but vandalism wasn't the only issue last year (see User talk:Awolf58). Freoh, if I'm wrong in my suspicions, I apologize. However, I believe it would be in your best interests and the community's to settle the issue several editors have now raised. I have no idea what the processes are, but my hope is that administrators at some level will take a look at this. As for the ANI itself, I continue to support a ban and believe it should be of sufficient length, 30 days, to make clear that your behaviors over the course of nearly four months have been at the expense of the good faith efforts of others, my own included. Allreet (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's something interesting. Back in August of 2022, Awolf created another user account with the name of GwiIIhickers, (spelled with two capital 'i' (I)) to make it appear that it read as my user name, Gwillhickers, spelled with two lower case 'l' (L) . This account was blocked indefinitely on August 12, 2022, only days before the user account of Freoh was created on August 20. Nothing conclusive, but something to consider. In any case, right now our primary concern should be aimed at closing this now belabored ANI, as it appears that Freoh is bent on slighting US history articles. As stated on his user page, his favorite article is List of common misconceptions, where the United States is the only country listed by name in its table of Contents, and where the Christianity section is the longest, by far, of any other religion covered.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:John Cummings[edit]

I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I'm worried about some of their contributions highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [48], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC))Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Disclosure: I know John Cummings, having met him at editathons, Wikimedia UK AGMs, and Wikimanias]

This is an egregious failure to AGF; with none of the claimed respect on show. No diffs have been provided, and no evidence of malfeasance. US-Verified appears to have nominated a great number of John's article creations for deletion, on spurious grounds. For example, Geeetech is described as "Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT. This page is clearly a marketing piece..." and is garnering delete !votes on that basis; again, no evidence of the claimed COI is provided, and no evidence that the page is "a marketing piece". US-Verified also tagged the article with {{COI}}, again with no evidence; and without starting the required discussion on the talk page. This all occurred after John had stated in reply to US-Verified on his (Johns) talk page that he has no COI in the article and asking US-Verified to provide evidence for his unsubstantiated allegation there that John had "not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements". US-Verified did not reply. Furthermore, US-Verified had earlier `removed all the photographs from the article, describing them, falsely, as " complete spam". This kind of hounding of a good-faith editor and positive contributor is not acceptable. Administrative action is required to prevent its continuance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @US-Verified: You have yet to provide any evidence of a conflict of interest or that he has an undeclared financial incentive. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a personal attack and potentially blockable. Please substantiate your claims or strike them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do find it highly concerning that an autopatrolled and Foundation-affiliated editor would dump this into mainspace. How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure. The sourcing is not great (largely press releases and non-independent coverage). Or why are we including text like The Simple-Strap system allows bags to be used in multiple ways e.g. from tote bag to shoulder bag to a backpack, it is used on the Shopper, Zipshopper, Day Tote, Tote and Small Tote. or QWSTION bags have multiple carrying options, for example the Office Bag can be carried horizontally, or as a shoulder bag or as a backpack. (with an image demonstrating the use to boot) or QWSTION doesn't follow the seasonal fashion calendar, they iterate on existing products, rather than creating new ones.. This reads like a toned-down PR/advertising piece. If warmed-over WP:CORPSPAM is what Cummings normally contributes, then autopatrolled needs yanked. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"How is that many images of products an encyclopedia page, not an advertising brochure." The same way it isn't on our many pages about motor vehicles, or aircraft, or video games consoles, or... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's one thing to include pictures of car makes for say, Ford Focus, to illustrate what the thing looks like, or to have a picture of a book cover so you know what the book looks like. It's another to include a picture of every.damn.product a borderline non-notable organization offers. It crosses the line and becomes problematic when we have content about how wonderful a satchel is that it can be worn/carried in many ways, and then demonstrate the many ways of carrying with images (provided by the company, to boot), of handbag models carrying the thing around in different ways. The article as Cummings left it was little better than a sales brochure. Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such conetnt issues should be discussed on the article's talk page; no evidnce has been provided of a pattern of problematic editing worthy of adminstrative action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're being real, if QWSTION were created by a new user, I suspect it would pretty quickly be draftified, stubified, or possibly tagged for G11. It's promotional for reasons Hog Farm explains. But while being a long-time good faith contributor doesn't make you exempt from WP:PROMO, it should buy a modicum of AGF and collaboration. Instead, US-Verified went in hot with assumptions of bad faith. It looks like before any edits to any of John's articles or any communication with John (that I can see), they just assumed bad faith that Geeetech was Created by someone with a strong COI and was reviewed automatically, courtesy WP:APAT, and continued to bang the COI drum without furnishing any evidence. The article does look like the person created it has a COI, but there's a difference between saying an article looks that way and making an accusation even after it was denied by someone who we have no reason to disbelieve (and, to the contrary, every reason to believe). Then, without any non-template messages to John that I can see, and without any talk page comments on any of the articles, US-Verified went through John's creations and nominated a slew for deletion. If they were all for promotional reasons, I'd understand, but the next link I clicked was Fidelity Communications, which is largely critical of the subject. It seems to just be WP:HOUNDING at this point. For something like QWSTION, it seems like a good first step would be "hey this is looking pretty promotional, could you take another pass?" YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Rhododendrites. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I've now read WP:HOUNDING and would not interact with them in any sense that gives such impression. My only intention was to bring it to the community's notice. I appreciate what they do and won't disturb them in future in any sense, if the community decides that their work is not problematic. US-Verified (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see you've put an asterisk on "I won't hound him" with if the community decides that their work is not problematic. IMO you've alerted enough people here; leave it to someone else to take action if necessary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the autopatrolled right is not appropriate for an editor creating this kind of content. If you showed me the QWSTION revision linked above without any further context, I wouldn't hesitate to assume it was thinly veiled advertising. I don't think US-Verified is unjustified in expressing a suspicion of a COI just based on the content of the articles they linked above (though some of their other comments elsewhere, like describing some of John's contributions as "spam", go too far in concluding bad faith). Colin M (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Colin. I've now read WP:AGF completely (and now aware how this works), so would comply with it strictly. Also, I've striked my comments which were not per WP:AGF. Hope this helps. US-Verified (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for doing that. And for what it's worth, it's entirely possible to create poor or problematic articles without having an ulterior motive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you all for your comments. General observation: User:John Cummings created QWSTION on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and then on the same day they uploaded more than a dozen product photos to Wikimedia Commons (diff: [49]) and then they were verified by VRT member. Like this photo: it shows that the souce and author of this photo is QWSTION - the company under discussion. Is this normal? In my opinion, this suggests that there was some sort contact with the company and then their representative emailed to VRT team (so as part of the process, it was verified by VRT and released under creative commons license). The same is true for Geeetech, created on 13:26, 30 August 2018‎ (diff [50]), it was tagged (notablity) by @Deb: (diff:[51]), removed by User:John Cummings on 3 September 2018 (diff:[52]). Photos were added by them a day later (diff:[53]). Now, also note that these photos were uploaded by User:John Cummings, like in the case of QWSTION, and then were verified by VRT member after an email was received from Geeetech (as they were the owner of these photos), like [54]. I will share some more diffs as I find some time this weekend. Thank you all. US-Verified (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Milo Edwards, created by User:John Cummings on 6 February 2022 (diff: [55]), a photo was posted earlier, i.e. 27 January 2022 (diff: [56]) when User:John Cummings/Articles/Milo was created. Re Autopatrolled: Mahdi Gilbert, Stephen Clarke (archaeologist) (and the organization: Monmouth Archaeological Society) were created by them, but I failed to find any siginifcant coverage about these topics. US-Verified (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is this normal? It's sometimes true that paid editors or people with a COI get photos submitted through VRT, but that requires a level of wiki knowledge that [most, I'd say] people here for promotion don't bother to learn. They'd probably be more likely to just upload the file without thinking about Commons licensing processes. On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. I've done this a number of times. More often than not they just say no, get confused, or don't reply, but once in a while you find someone happy to oblige. The first one that comes to my mind is Pocket FM. I had no connection with the company when I wrote that. I think I'd just heard a radio story about it, and now we have a bunch of relevant photos. Realistically, if the person in charge of PR/marketing/whatever is savvy these days, they should be happy to oblige when someone wants to write about you on Wikipedia. None of this is to say I agree with the use of images in e.g. the QWSTION article, but to answer your question "is this normal?", I'd say "fairly normal". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As you said, On the other hand, many of us have, upon writing an article, decided to reach out to the subject for images. This fits well in your case. You created the article on Pocket FM on 14:12, 20 January 2016 (diff: [57]) and then decided to reach out. A donated photo was uploaded by you on 25 January 2016 (diff: [58]) that means it took around five days which is reasonable. Now, take a look at the case already mentioned. QWSTION was created by them on 20:52, 14 April 2022‎ and but they started uploading photos on Wikimedia Commons before that. Around four photos were uploaded by them (exactly on 19:41, 14 April 2022) before the article creation. The photos uploaded are: 1) [59] (Text: Freunde von Freunden Qwstion Company Profile Zurich) 2) [60] (Text: "QWSTION holdall design process") 3) [61] (Text: "QWSTION minimal collection cutting pattern"), 4) [62]. All uploads on that day [63]. This is not normal. How can they be so sure — by uploading them earlier than the article creation itself — that the company will donate these photos, if they create an article — not one article, but two articles, other one is about the company's product — about them. Also, this odd editing pattern is only visible on a few articles only. Your example of a new user above makes more sense. Anyways, the community deserves a satisfactory answer from them. Let's wait for their response on this. US-Verified (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have a vague memory of tagging one of John's articles, but I also recall that I discussed it with him and explained that he needed to make a reasonable claim of notability, which the article at that time didn't do. I believe he made the necessary changes before he removed the tag. That's all I can say. Deb (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So the sum total of your evidence for accusing - a very serious accusation - John of COI and undeclared paid editing is a hunch based on the fact that he followoed the correct and advertised process fror getting an artcile subject to provide clearence for the use of their images? It's a pitty many more editors do not take the time and trouble to do that. Do you not realise the chilling behaviour your inappropriate action can have on other good-faith volunteers who may be considerng cnotrbition to our project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nope. If you go through this discussion, then you will find multiple editors who concur with me (partially maybe). If we post any of above mentioned articles on WP:COIN (blind test - not possible though), then you find it clearer. WP:COI issue is not addressed yet - merely rejecting it is not enough. I'll expand on my rationale as I said above. US-Verified (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You've posted evidence that John has created some problematic articles on potentially non-notable subjects but that is not, in itself, evidence of a conflict of interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not one single editor has agreed with you that there is a "COI issue". There is no COI issue to address, because you have provided not one scintilla of evidence of COI. And yet you still keep casting unfounded aspersions. This needs to stop, or be stopped. 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)~
With no comment on this specific example, it might be a good general principle to have autopatrolled removed from paid editors, including Wikimedians in Residence. It's useful to have that second pair of eyes regarding COI. CMD (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It really would not, for a number of very good reasons, but that's orthagonal to the issue at hand. In none of the articles under discussion was John paid, nor acting as a WiR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it's orthogonal. No, a number of unexplained reasons is not convincing for a very rare user perk. CMD (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to hear more from John (and less from Andy) about John's connection with the article subject, if any. I disagree with Harry; an editor creating a WP:PROMO page about a company does, in and of itself, raise reasonable questions about WP:COI, and this looks like a product advertisement. I don't think I've seen a Wikipedia article that looks so much like a brochure before. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levivich: for a new editor or one who has only shown an interest in a narrow range of topics, sure. John has ~17k edits to a variety of subjects. Looking at his last few hundred, it looks like he writes/edits about subjects he sees elsewhere (like the news or a social media feed or in the street) but without the deep knowledge of encyclopaedic writing and notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of asking OP to strike, we should be thanking them for bringing this important matter to our attention. Levivich (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know anything about this alleged conflict of interest, but there seems to be some original research going on here. For example, take a look at this diff of Manila hemp that adds a step-by-step description of the manufacturing process (the same material is also present at Bananatex and Abacá). Four citations are given: [64] [65] [66] [67] (I've fixed the last link, which was incorrect in the article). There is also this YouTube video embedded in the last two sources. As far as I can tell, none of these citations except the first one describe the manufacturing process in any detail (and the first source only supports the first ~6 images in our gallery). The YouTube video does briefly mention turning the fibers into paper and then into yarn, but it does not give a description as detailed as that given in our article. Am I missing something?

Also (and this is just something I happened to notice), so far three separate users have added the {{advert}} tag to QWSTION, which is not really a good look. Shells-shells (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The QWSTION diff is really bad. That revision potentially qualifies for G11, and shows a major misunderstanding of what our articles are supposed to look like (too many images), what tone to use for our articles (absolutely should not be hyping up a company/product), and what sources to use for articles (use of neutral sources would probably have avoided the tone problems). The Bananatex diff seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. In this user's defense, they haven't created any articles this year, and they have created a lot of species articles (which benefit from autopatrol) in the past. Overall, I'd lean towards removing autopatrol because of the QWSTION diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've pulled autopatrolled. COI or not, this is blatant spam that would disqualify any other editor from that user right. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good move and having no autopatrol is no big deal. Just means that their new articles will get a second set of eyes. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good call. Autopatrolled is really the only "user right" that we have that having it or not changes nothing about your own editing, it just manages review queues. Sending this editors pages through NFPP seems a reasonable choice for now. Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I had almost pulled it myself earlier, but decided to wait to see how this discussion went. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question of whether or not we can determine a COI is somewhat irrelevant. Any editor creating blatant advertisements and spammy pages, as Cummings is doing, is in violation of our policies, whether he was paid to do it, or whether he has any connection besides he thought it was interesting. Frankly, the idea that US-Verified should be sanctioned for failing to assume good faith when the most obvious possibility here is an undeclared COI is ridiculous and smacks of shooting the messenger because someone's wiki-friend is the one being discussed (and haven't we had enough of WMUK protecting their buddies from well-deserved sanctions to last a lifetime?) AGF is not a suicide pact, and I applaud US-Verified for bringing this up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise. I'm quite disturbed by the initial response to US-Verified's comments by a couple of users. It's pretty clear there is a problem here. Number 57 17:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Number 57, Levivich for your comments and calling a spade a spade. Andy's above comments are not helpful and I'm feeling disturbed reading them. US-Verified (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add me to the list of those who find these edits disturbing, to say the least. US-Verified may have made some errors in presenting this report, but that doesn't invalidate it; there's definitely cause for concern here. If I'd seen this tagged as G11 I'd have deleted it without the slightest hesitation. So here's a plain question which just needs a plain answer: John Cummings, were you paid to create the truly awful page you made at QWSTION? I'm sorry to hear you're not well, but please take the time to answer anyway. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply by John Cummings

Hi all

I'm recovering from long covid and taking an extended break from work and going on the computer in general so haven't seen this thread before.


I have already said (as US-Verified acknowledges above) I have no COI with regard to these articles. Nor am I paid for any of my editing, other than as previously declared as a Wikimedian in Residence. I would guess maybe 5-10% of the 100s of articles I've written are about organisations or products, I mostly write about the environment/sustainability/plants, I think I've maybe had 1 article deleted as not notable in 11 years of contributing to Wikipedia (about a man who saved people from a mass shooting).


After no one replied to this post for only 10 minutes US-Verified added COI and other tags to many (I counted 18) articles that I've created and nominated 7 for deletion in about half an hour. Like others here have already said, I have experienced this as hounding.

Previously I have replied on my talk page to them explaining users must provide information on why they think there is a COI, but they have not and have continued to accuse others of COI without explanation e.g ByHours, CarSwap, Guildhawk, Jurga Žilinskienė, Relief Therapeutics and nominated a large number of pages created by others for deletion. They've nominated so many articles for deletion they've had to be asked on their talk page to slow down because they're overwhelming the system. On Thursday they sent me a message on my talk page saying I don't have a conflict of interest... so I am quite confused by their behaviour. I'd really appreciate if someone could provide US-Verified with some guidance on rules around COI because they're continuing to accuse people of COI without providing evidence which cannot be pleasant for the editors. Also to assess the article tags and nominations for deletions they've made.


Regarding the article about QWSTION I agree the tone could be much better, I asked the people who put the tags on the article to clarify which parts were problematic (on my talk page) but received no reply. I'll work on the article again taking this feedback into account when I'm physically able. Please add your comments on how to improve it to the talk page of the article rather than here so they don't get lost.

As others have said I've asked companies/organisations for photos to include in articles I've written, something I'm pretty experienced in guiding people through given my day job. We usually don't have any open license photos for products, or just poor quality ones, but articles for more masculine products like cars, trains, planes, military equipment etc often include images of every product eg Ferrari, Boeing 747. I don't think including every model of a plane or car for a company would be described on Wikipedia as advertising but I understand why it could be seen as this for articles that don't usually have so many photos available. Again if people have ideas of which images to include please add them to the talk page.


I hope this answers your questions, I will check again next week some time for any replies. I would appreciate if users could @ me in the messages if their questions are directed at me, it's a lot of effort for me to read all this text currently.


John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm hoping you get better soon. I don't think this answers the questions asked above. RE e.g.:
  • CarSwap was created by User:Isingness who is blocked for advertising
  • ByHours, when I discovered this article (btw, I tracked your articles, this article, all other through reverse search using press release or spammy website link) it looked like this. A few problems I noted were use of press releases, ref bombing, and way the awards section was written clearly suggest someone with COI edited it. I was right about this and found that a single-purpose account User:Oneal Rock created the article.
  • Guildhawk and Jurga Žilinskienė are interlinked, much like QWSTION and its product Bananatex. These two articles, Guildhawk and its founder have been edited by someone (User:Paxlife) who is sort of maintaining these two for a year now and the tone of their edits suggests that they haven't declared COI yet -- I have sent them a message to declare it. I'm glad you brought these two here so there is a chance we can cleanup its contents now.
  • Relief Therapeutics is cited mostly with primary sources (i.e. press releases, company links, and others), edited recently by User:WaterfordWhisperer. Thank you!
US-Verified (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE hounding: As I said, I tracked your problematic article QWSTION through reverse search and was the reason that I checked your editing history and found more articles that were not compliant with WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV (I just nominated them, so we can discuss). I've just seen your editing history for a few times and this was done for a "good cause" (as described on that guideline). US-Verified (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

  • [68] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
  • Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [69]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].
  • Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [81], [82], [83], [84], edit-wars in another article [85], [86].
  • According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [87], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [88], [89], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
  • While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [90], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [91]. The same website ( publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [92].

In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Proposal - Indef Topic Ban for topics relating to Azerbajian/Azeris and Western Asia Countries, broadly construed - I think based on the editors disruptive editing in this area is clear in their partisan editing, and would normally think a site ban would be warranted, but it looks like the user has made some edits outside the topic area and could still work constructively in noncontentious topics.
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per my report.
KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I reverted the POV edit of N1C4T97 in Gülüstan, Nakhchivan - what they don't mention is that the wikilinked main article in their edit literally has 3 reliable sources for cultural genocide in the lead [93], [94], [95]. Can't comment about the other articles, but N1C4T97 defending his tendentious editing with this misleading wall of text pushes me to support a topic-ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LegalSmeagolian, I was not actively editing, while I created my account many years ago. So, I am new to Wikipedia, especially to the EnWiki, and I acknowledge that I unintentionally disobeyed some rules. Like, I was unaware of the community-imposed extended-confirmed limits that prohibit new editors from making edits related to the topic area. I stopped making any further alterations to the topic area after I noticed the message put on my user talk page about that.
Tendentious editing accusations against me are made-up and groundless. In this case, the "evidence" against me cannot even be referred to as such, as the difference between revisions were manipulated to deceive the admins. I am not sure why KhndzorUtogh did that, but evidently, he snipped through my edit history, and without even attempting to clarify them with me, he brought a bunch of snippets in an effort to convince admins to ban me.
For example:
1. In this difference between revisions I specified the author "Armenian historian George Bournoutian" because I thought that "primary sources" sound vague. I also changed "cultural genocide" to the "cultural vandalism" as per cited source, which clearly states "cultural vandalism" and doesn't contain "cultural genocide" term. The other source other is a website that is funded by Armenian government (note the text on bottom). I am astounded that KhndzorUtogh did not even bother to discuss this edit before bringing it up to accuse me of tendentious editing.
2. difference between revisions KhndzorUtogh accused me for removing "the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article". In fact, I explained everything in the edit summary, but I will repeat it here. I removed the war crimes category because it is not applicable for the article which is about the village, and I removed "the sourced Azeri war crime" because it was cited to some unknown partisan website, which is based in Yerevan, Armenia. On the other difference between revisions, I was adding war crimes categories to the events where civilians were massacred. There is a difference between an article about village and an article about events. I do not think I even need to explain that to anyone. I was doing that because those events fall under UN war crime classification [96]. I am curious why KhndzorUtogh did not mention anything about the edit summary in which I explained everything. Why is he making this bogus accusation without even bothering to discuss this edit beforehand?
3. "According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn't have an Azeri war crime category since "places cannot be a war crimes" [174], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [175], [176], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article." - This is totally made up; in fact, it is a clear disinformation. On 20 February 2023, I added the Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany category to the Armenian Legion article. That edit was reverted on 17 March 2023 by Kevo327 with the "Category is for persons" edit summary. Kevo327's edit summary convinced me, and I deleted an identical category from the identical article on March 19, 2023. Before we established the consensus that these categories do not apply to these articles, there was some back and forth between these difference between revisions[97] [98], but the point is that KhndzorUtogh's description of these difference between revisions is entirely misleading. I don't know why KhndzorUtogh attempted to mislead administrators into believing that first I removed from one article and then added to another. Time, when edits were made, proves the opposite.
In conclusion, it is apparent, and I have demonstrated, that this report is baseless, and I can not believe that it was filed in good faith. KhndzorUtogh never came out to me on the talk page to discuss my edits, nor did he engage in many of the difference between revisions he provided here. From what I see KhndzorUtogh essentially glanced through my edit history, sniped some of my edits, did not even bother to discuss them with me, and did everything he could to mislead administrators and persuade them to ban me. I hope administrators will recognize this and not fall for this false information.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@N1C4T97, articles on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts are under an extended-confirmed restriction, meaning they are off-limits to editors under 500 edits. They are contentious subjects that require a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know it now, but I was unaware about that restriction until I was informed on my talk page by another user. I believe making that restriction more visible to newcomers would be beneficial.N1C4T97 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've blocked N1C4T97 for 1 week for their violation of WP:GS/AA on March 19 (Special:Diff/1145494935, a series of 3 edits), 3 hours after receiving a notice from Kevo that specifically explained the community sanction (Special:Diff/1145468587). I haven't otherwise investigated their edits, but given GS/AA, discussion of a topic ban at this time seems moot. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've gone ahead and upgraded to a WP:NOTHERE indefinite site ban following further investigation, considering both the evidence above and additional investigation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What an appalling display of collaboration we've witnessed! Three partisan pro-Armenian editors relentlessly pursued a new pro-Azerbaijani editor in an attempt to force him out of wiki. At this stage, it's hard to tell whether Rosguill is oblivious to the fact that said pro-Armenian editors are ganging up against a newcomer or if he is consciously supporting their efforts.
    @Rosguill:, I have been closely monitoring your administrative actions within the Ar-Az area for a long time now, and I've noticed you regularly back up pro-Armenian editors and treat pro-Azerbaijani editors unfairly and harshly without distinction to the merit of either side's arguments. In the latest incident, you opted to ban a new user who was clearly being targeted by a group of editors. You banned them immediately for not complying with an extended-confirmed restriction even though they had ceased editing in the area as soon as they had become aware of it, despite that, you arbitrarily decided that a site ban was an appropriate measure.
    How could you immediately site ban a beginner user when it was evident that they was being targeted by a group of editors? Have you forgotten about the principles of WP:NEWBIES and WP:GOODFAITH, or do you choose to ignore them selectively? Did you not consider the fact that the people who reported him were edit warring with him, and none bothered to offer them any assistance or engage him in a dialogue about how Wikipedia works? Strangely, you did not resort to the usual excuses of "content dispute" or "lack of discussion" this time. Did you even bother to read his response, which clearly exposed the bad faith intention of the poorly crafted report, or do you simply not care?
    I implore @Callanecc, Wugapodes, SilkTork, El C, Moneytrees, Nythar, Izno, Beeblebrox, Starship.paint, CaptainEek, Guerillero, and Stifle:, to investigate Rosguill's clearly biased and partisan adminship in the Ar-Az area and to take necessary steps to eliminate any and all disruption caused by his prejudiced and partisan actions, which he seems unable to control/identify. (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I stated above and in the block log, this block was the result of additional investigation. I'm happy to share the details of the investigation with any admin. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, I have no experience at all in Ar/Az, and also, I’m not an admin. starship.paint (exalt) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Topic ban - @Rosguill: I have to agree with the nominator, I think the report clearly shows N1C4T97’s disruptive behaviour, him editing in partisan manner - this isn't something needed in the already volatile and contentious AA topic area. POV-pushing by adding "war crime" categories and removing them elsewhere based on what/where suits their POV, and then edit warring over it - the pattern is clear. I’m sorry to see them calling the report "baseless" in the face of clear evidence - this shows no insight or willingness to improve. This leaves little hope that editing will be better after the week of block, and therefore I think the tban should be applied as a preventative measure. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Pvmoutside autopatrolled rights[edit]

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

I was suggested by Barkeep49 to come here. I am trying to get a hold on the autopatrolled rights of editors who masscreate stubs and while I was checking some of the top ten article creators and I came across Pvmoutside, who is a prolific stub creator since over 10 years with an stub count of over 8000 per xtools. At the beginning of his wikipedia career they also created some start class articles. Pvmoutside was given the autopatrolled rights by an editor who is no longer editing since 2012. They create technical articles on species in danger, usually without mentioning in their articles that they are in danger like here, here or here, nor adding an image or add more prose than mentioning their existence in a country. You can see their latest articles here. A recent article not on a species didn't have an inline citation at all.

Autopatrolled mentions "clean" articles as also noted by Barkeep49.

  • I'd support to remove Pvmoutside the autopatrolled rights so reviewers get to tag them for deficiencies such as too technical, image requested etc. Pvmoutside doesn't seem to be too much aware for what autopatrolled actually is and believed that the autopatrolled rights entitles them to move pages, which doesn't seem to be correct as noted by Barkeep49 and also by Uanfala in a discussion before. Courtesy pings to Uanfala. I am not against masscreation of stubs, I believe Esculenta would be a good example of who would be a trusted masscreator of articles on autopatrolled. Courtesy ping to Esculenta. But deficient stubs on autopatrolled is not a good idea in my opinion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled editors are expected to produce articles that do not need manual review; mass creating micro-stubs without a consensus approving their creation does not fall into this category. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see what is wrong with, for example, Erythrolamprus sagittifer as a stub article. All species are considered notable, so there can be no reason not to create an article. A stub is a place-holder, which this is. It has two very respectable references and a taxobox that connects it to the genus article and other higher taxon articles. The conservation status of the species is shown in the taxobox, as normal for a stub. Why would it need to be reviewed? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose User creates fully functional taxon stubs that contain all features required for this type - complete taxobox, authority, synonyms, fundamental references. Of the dozens I have spot-checked, there was not one that could not be NPP signed off. These thus do not require review through the queue, which is the sole reason for the autopatrolled right. "Did not contain all information that could have been included" is the state of all stubs, not a reasonable requirement of stub creators, and not a valid point in this regard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose. From the XTools summary linked above (prolific stub creator), Pvmoutside has created 8,775 articles, not including redirects. 118 of these were later deleted, most of which (106/118) were deleted to make way for a page move, usually to change a title between common and scientific name or due to a later taxonomic change (split or merge species). Of the remaining twelve deleted articles, nine appear to have been made in error, and were most often deleted at the users request. This has resulted in 99.9% of the articles he has created still remaining in mainspace. This level of article retention rate is exactly why the auto-patrolled status is appropriate in order to save new page reviewers time and effort validating new article creations. The articles created by Pvmoutside are all fully functional, and range from disambiguation pages to those now rated as GA or FL. Pvmoutside's article creation contributions are valuable to the encyclopedia and should be further encouraged and emulated. Loopy30 (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't looked in depth, but in this, and previous, discussions, I haven't seen anyone point out any actual problems with these stubs other than the fact that they're short. Yes, the three examples given above (here, here and here) a sourced to the IUCN Red List, but their endangerment status (as prominently visible in the infobox) is least-concern, which means they're not endangered, and this fact is probably not salient enough to be worth mentioning in the prose as well.
    I don't get what sorts of "deficiencies" these stubs will need to get tagged for by reviewers. If {{image requested}} is important, then we can ask Pvmoutside to add it when creating the stubs' talk pages. As for {{too technical}}, which articles would that be applicable to? If the article goes like "X is a species in such and such subfamily, named in the year YYYY by so and so, and found in such and such countries", then that's as plain and clear as it can get. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Pvmoutside has produced is, for better or worse, the state of many species pages. If anyone feels that the bar for species pages should be higher, they really should start an RfC to update WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center should never have been put in mainspace, but I can't see any problem with the species pages, which is the vast majority of their creations. As mentioned above, if something like Oxyrhopus trigeminus is not an acceptable stub (in my opinion, it's absolutely fine), that's something that needs a wider discussion rather than trying to cause issues for an editor who is only doing what many others have done previously, with apparently few issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's fine to create such stubs, but not on autopatrolled. The suggestion is meant to regulate the masscreation of stubs, and maybe also mention that the species are in danger, enable them to get tagged for too technical, image requested etc. Anyway, the closers seem to follow much more reason than simple majority these days and I'll hope they follow my approach to the masscreation of stubs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment species articles are a useful magnet for subject experts. Many subject experts will balk at starting a new Wikipedia article, which is intimidating. They will, however, add information to a pre-existing article they happen to have come across, often as an IP editor, and they often give pretty decent referencing. Stub species articles fulfil a very valuable function by providing a place in which others can - easily - write about something that we've already decided is guaranteed to be notable. Elemimele (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For these species stubs, I think it would be a much better idea to merge them into the genus articles rather than revoke autopatrolled rights (for now). A lot of information is duplicated between the genera and species pages (e.g. Kingdom–Genus infobox entry and authority). I see it as a more productive alternative than what's proposed. SMEs can still improve them because the articles will still be somewhere, and make the resulting page longer and more likely to pass notability challenges. SWinxy (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Let's graciously forgo penalizing the editor for entirely conforming to expected standards, and instead screw up their output contrary to established consensus to avoid nonexistent notability concerns." Here's a better idea: let's not. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you also oppose penalizing them? SWinxy (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woosh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A little update. I didn't know that least concern doesn't mean that they are in danger and they are not in danger. I figured that if they are on the red list, they are in danger. I correct me on that. Might be worth clarfifying that in he article. Too technical. But that's a point of view that one can share or not. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IUCN Red List contains conservation statuses for (ideally) all species, so it will include species that are not threatened. This is not the same meaning that the average person thinks of when someone says "red list" which may just contain species threatened or worse, and some people may refer to regional threatened species indices as "red lists". The IUCN Red List acts more like an encyclopedia. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Draft:Jean McDonough Arts Center seems to be the only problematic diff presented (might not pass WP:NCORP). Species articles always survive AFD. And the species diffs presented above each contain multiple sources. I think creators of species articles are good candidates for autopatrolled since they tend to create high volumes of notable articles, so autopatrolling them reduces NPP workload, and the articles are very safe (no chance of UPE). –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Huh? If anything, Pvmoutside should be commended for improving Wikipedia's coverage of species, not penalized for it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Destructive editing by User:Universalsunset[edit]

Apparently there is a dispute between Nabongo and Spotts for who is the first black woman to travel to all counties in the world. From what I can tell, User:Universalsunset seem determined to make a statement on the article about Jessica Nabongo that she was the second woman to do so and bend the article about Nabongo in favor of Spotts without proper citations. From the talk page of User:Universalsunset it seems that the user has tried to push through articles stating Spotts as first. I have no problem with the Nabongo article stating she is second, if there is a reputable source declaring her so. I do have a problem that User:Universalsunset is doing destructive edits falsely claiming "promotional edits". This clearly shows the user does not understand Wikipedia policy. The user is also quite new to Wikipedia judging by their contributions so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

  • I tried to remove the citation "CORRECTION: Jessica Nabongo will be the second black woman after Woni Spotts to travel to every country in the world if she achieves her goal." because it is based on a report for which the source is explicitly stated as being Spotts herself. My edit has been reverted twice without discussion.
  • After having reviewed all the citations in the article I could not find a single citation stating that Nabongo was declared second (except for an article starting with "CORRECTION: ..." which is based on a report by Spotts herself). I edited the article Jessica Nabongo to state that both Nabongo and Spotts claimed to be first and also mentioned the dispute. My edit was reverted.
  • I tried to add that Nabongo authored a book which User:Universalsunset has deemed twice as promotional and reverted my edits.
  • I have tried to add factual details about Nabongo's book (the actual title and the publisher), but my edits have been reverted twice.
  • tried removing all controversial text about the dispute only adding Nabongo as an author, my edit was completely reversed.
  • complete reverts

--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, about that --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is now up for deletion for that reason.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Wlwl0623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in an edit war to insert a recent controversial topic which primarily cites Fox News and Daily Wire without consensus. On a side note, Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly bludgeoning on the talk page to defend Fox News/Tucker Carlson's credibility, framing the article as politically biased because right-wing media are rejected for advancing left-wing political ideology, which is a false statement. The issue has gone so bad that I had to request a temporary semi-protection for talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack‎ due to persistent disruptive messages by ip users. Therefore I request broader administrative involvement to this incident. (Notification has been sent to both Wlwl0623 and Matt Smith.) -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daily Wire material has been removed following community consensus. For Fox News, "Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News".
The controversy is around what the video suggests, instead of whether they are authentic. Therefore the existence of this section is justified. Wlwl0623 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I recall correctly, consensus differentiates between regular Fox News and their pundits, of whom Carlson is one. His feature on the Capitol is also not “routine and uncontroversial” news. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The controversy here is whether several minutes of video edited down from 40,000 hours presents a full and accurate depiction of events. The video "suggests" what the editors of a highly dubious source intend it to suggest. Without reliable sources stating the video fully and accurately depicts events, anything from Tucker Carlson of Fox News must not be included in such a contentious topic area. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FoxNews(Talkshows) is the relevant entry at WP:RSP. Further amplified by FoxNews(Politics) on same list. So no, if DailyDot and FoxNews are the sources, it is not justified. Add in WP:ONUS, WP:DUE and WP:CONSENSUS and it's really not justified in any way at all. Slywriter (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah Fox News talk shows are not RS, and Fox News are also not an RS for politics. So the fact Fox News may currently not be considered generally unreliable is a moot point since it isn't reliable in the case of the specifics here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am User:Matt Smith, and I would like to point out that User:Sameboat's claim about me is false. I have never defended Tucker Carlson's credibility in a bludgeoning way. In the discussion section, I only mentioned Tucker Carlson in two discussions:

  • The first one is with User:Muboshgu and User:Dumuzid. To see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Muboshgu with these text: But the video released by Tucker did show that
  • The second one is with User:Slatersteven and User:Sameboat. Too see the discussion, please search for my reply to User:Slatersteven with these text: When exactly have Fox and Carlson "admitted to lying"?

The first one is relatively short and did not really involve discussing Tucker Carson's credibility. The second one is the actual one, and the only one, which involved discussing Tucker Carson's credibility.

As we can see, in the second one, User:Sameboat presented me with an old news whose heading is considered taken-out-of-content by me. After that, User:Slatersteven presented me with a few news, which I said are more or less the same. And then User:Slatersteven presented me with a few more news, but User:Sameboat suggested that this debate should not continue. I then agreed tacitly by not continuing to reply to User:Slatersteven.

Aside from the aforementioned two discussions, I also pinged User:Dronebogus to ask about his particular reason for removing an IP user's comment, which I considered reasonable, though User:Dronebogus did not reply. To see that ping of mine, please search for these text: @Dronebogus: I think the comment you removed actually looked reasonable. That is my last discussion about the article, and it also did not involve discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Furthermore, my intention of pinging User:Dronebogus was not discussing Tuck Carlson's credibility. Instead, my intention was discussing the article's balance between different opinions, which does not necessarily need to involve discussing anyone's credibility.

So what on earth did I bludgeon about? I think User:Sameboat exaggerated those discussions as if a bludgeoning occurred. Maybe he did not pay attention to the details of those discussions? I don't know. Anyway, I did not bludgeon nor even try to, and my tacitly agreeing not to continue the debate in the second discussion already showed that. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the comment because it was about 90 percent complaining about media bias and fundamental principles like WP:Reliable sources that can’t be changed, and 10 percent anything relevant about the article or topic. Dronebogus (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wlwl0623 lacks a basic understanding of the usage of reliable sources in Wikipedia. In the article CNN, here they added an Ad Fontes Media citation. WP:RSP clearly states "Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability." They later reverted my removal and then added a Biasly citation (without even trying to prove if Biasly is credible) and an NYT source that doesn't even mention CNN's bias. As can be seen in the page's history, they don't seem know when to stop reverting and possibly aren't aware of WP:BRD. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly all of Matt Smith's reply regarding this topic is "it's not about Fox News/Carlson's credibility; it's about the political bias of the article". The worst offender has to be casting doubt on the J6 committee's integrity[99][100] which is not backed by any reliable source. This issue is always about our reliable source policy, nothing less, nothing more, but Matt Smith shrugged it all off every time we told him about that. I find it very unconvincing from an editor active since 2014 (on Chinese Wikipedia), and conclude that it's a deliberate act of manipulation to derail the discussion. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carlson is explicitly listed as unreliable at RSPS and even if he wasn’t, as Fox News’s chief polemicist, if he told me it was raining, I’d stick my hand out the door to double check. Any editor who disagrees really needs to be bonked with the WP:CIR bat. Sceptre (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just noting that I declined protecting this page (RfPP diff), deferring the matter to WP:AN3 ( {{rfpp|an3}} ), having done so unaware of this ANI thread. A thread which I have yet to review, so I'm unsure to what extent if any it'd have influenced my decision. El_C 08:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since Wlwl0623 has agreed to retract from the edit war, a full-protection is not needed, for now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the page is unlikely to have been fully-protected on account of one (or even two) user(s), anyway. El_C 09:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sameboat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continued to make exaggerated claim against me, for example, by asserting that nearly all of my replies regarding this topic are about the political bias of the article. But the fact is that, out of those specific 7 replies of mine, only the last one is such. Also, I felt that he went too far and likely breached WP:No personal attack by labeling me as "The worst offender". --Matt Smith (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, he didn't, as that's not a personal attack. For my money, you're inching ever closer to a topic ban. —  Salvio giuliano 10:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After using those words (which I consider offensive), he linked my comments. Is that not the same as including me in his targets?
The discussion about the article had already ended in the article's talk page. I came to here just to clarify his claims about me, not to continue on the topic. Therefore, I'm not sure why you would think of topic ban. Would you mind explaining? Matt Smith (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't this one of those cases where WP:ARE might be a better bet if there are problems with user behaviour serious enough to warrant action? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Matt Smith, probably. For Wlwl0623 I'm not sure, because, from a very cursory examination of his edits, I'm starting to wonder whether a WP:NOTHERE indef wouldn't be be the best solution... —  Salvio giuliano 11:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah a possible community site ban or indef is one reason to continue this. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only wondering, I think it so clearly is I’ve just issued such a block. The RGW attitude coming from that editor was not changing. Courcelles (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I see both of the main named editors may have only been given alerts recently so maybe it's unlikely an admin can sanction under CT either unilaterally or from ARE. Even so, IMO it's probably better to just wait and see if any alleged misbehaviour improves and file at ARE if it doesn't rather than bother with a community sanctions process. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dilpreet Singh and mess at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist)[edit]

This user has repeatedly refused to understand Wikipedia Policy about reliable sources, verifiability and assuming good faith. His activity on Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) (which is a BLP talk page) is highly disruptive and tendentious.

  • User also claims that Page Protections have been added to this page for the sole purpose of "pro-state narrative to flourish"
    like here and here

Users like @CrusaderForTruth2023: and @Mixmon: and I have attempted to explain to him and point him to relevant guidelines and policy, but he shows no capacity what so over to understand what we are attempting to explain. WP:NOTHERE in the form of Treating editing as a battleground — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talkcontribs) 19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding my summary on a closed DRN as a reference. Mixmon (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I belive if you rather input to construct a dialog at first we wouldn't be in this situation. I have pointed multiple times same concern and your response is in a way, like you don't want to accommodate ground reality. there's is clearly WP:NPOV and article is not balanced. If you guys understood at first point why I have to repeat so many times to make you stop on further edit that too without discussing on the talk page. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you haven't cited any reliable source WP:RS you are just promoting original research WP:OR Mixmon (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:RS we will discuss this on relevant page and there's already a thread & will open another one to discuss this further. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Extorc @Mixmon User Dilpreet Singh has the right to claim a possible conflict of interest as per WP:COI, seeing as one of the two users have Hindutva userboxes and both the users’ editing history is related to figures related to the Hindutva movement (including creating articles for Hindutva personalities). It is not a personal attack if a user suspects another of having possible conflict of interest in-regards to their editing if it can be reasonably assumed based on their activity and information provided on Wikipedia. Therefore, this is @Dilpreet Singh asserting a conflict of interest with regards to certain editors on an article where it may interfere. Dilpreet should not be punished and the victim of a witchhunt if he voices concerns about conflicts of interest of certain editors. Diffs: 1) – draft for Hindutva internet personality, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, by user Mixmon 2) – including viewpoints of Hindutva economist, Sanjeev Sanyal, in article by Mixmon, even after being reverted by another editor who was concerned about including the views of a controversial figure into the article. User Extorc currently has a Hindutva infobox on his user page, whilst this may not indicate an affiliation with Hindutva but rather a genuine interest in Hindutva topics, a cursory look at his editing history can reasonably lead to someone coming to the latter conclusion. His choice of words in past edits are suspect of holding certain viewpoints on issues which are sympathetic of common Hindutva talkpoints and narratives, such as that Muslims are overly-appeased in India: 1) – writing edit that discusses how a court decision relates to the apparent "appeasement" of the Muslim minority in India. 2) – contributing to an article titled "Criticism of Islam", where he changed wording slightly to claim that Muslims are more aggressive due to their religious environment and "Islamic imperialistic history", which is suspect given the above points. Therefore, is it unreasonable for Dilpreet to claim conflicts of interest based on Hindutva considering all of this? It is not a baseless personal attack as it is being presented here. ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now what is "Hindutva economist" the user who reverted again cited no source for this labelling (I accepted that edit not because of the reason cited by that editor but because of lack of good quality critical analysis in the source unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies). You people can fall to such a low level- even if you disagree with the views of the person in draft article how is that an indication of bias? Following that logic editors who created articles on criminals have a criminal mindset? That draft is still there and I will work on that ( by the way again no source to brand him "Hindutva personality"). I am not supposed to clarify on this but it remains a proof of your meanness. Mixmon (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mixmon I am not being mean or personally attacking anyone, I am making the argument that Dilpreet has reasonable grounds for voicing concerns of certain editors on the basis of WP:COI and that his accusations are not empty, hollow, or unsubstantiated (as shown by the diffs I have provided above). Your draft of Abhijit Iyer-Mitra portrayed him positively and does not meet WP:BALANCE, it makes no mention of his past controversies, controversial views, and affiliations with extremist ideologies. The controversy section is shallow and concludes by again showing him in a positive light.
Abhijit Iyer-Mitra literally is an contributor and writer for the Swarajya Magazine, one of the the main internet outlets for Hindutva on the internet: (search the keywords "Abhijit Iyer-Mitra swarajya" on Google to find his page on the Swarajya website, I cannot link it because their website is blacklisted on Wikipedia)
Sanjeev Sanyal is associated with the BJP, working as an economic advisor to it, the main Hindutva political party of India: ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look at the arguments you are making full of original research and lies - I can reply to this nonsense if you want but bring it to my talk page. This noticeboard is not for that. Mixmon (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mixmon This is the right place for this discussion as it was claimed @Dilpreet Singh made personal attacks by suggesting others may have a Hindutva bias. Meanwhile, an editor can suggest possible conflict of interests regarding certain editors in specific areas as per WP:COI, and these are not personal attacks if they are reasonable based on the particular editor's activity and information shared on Wikipedia. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
same thing I have noticed about DaxServer, they kept a biased against Sikhs. no doubt our observations was correct. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dilpreet Singh This is a gross personal attack. I'll let it go if you strike it offDaxServer (t · m · c) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What real arguments about policies and guidelines they are making? Their entire agrument is based on allegations on editors and original research about their editing. Mixmon (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dilpreet Singh if you suspect another user of having a conflict of interest, please substantiate your claim by referring to their past editing history, information they provided about themselves on Wikipedia, and the views they have shared on Wikipedia (by sharing links of examples of evidence to support your assertion). Otherwise, it may be seen as a personal attack without basis. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThethPunjabi Sorry, wasnt able to reply to the COI allegations in time. If you really believe that the COI allegations you have made hold water, kindly take them to WP:COI/N >>> 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was just thinking of filing a report on Dilpreet Singh. The only thing the user has to offer is that [all] RS are just state-run propaganda. The user is exhibiting a crusader’s WP:RGW behaviour. Sorting thru the discussions is painful and quite a headache as the talk page is being littered with the same argument (see OP links). The user is a net negative and clearly WP:NOTHERE for an encyclopaedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, and see the reply to my Contentious topic reminder here where they just repeats the same thing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC) (amended at 21:44 22 March 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    and this comment is an example of his biasedness against sikhs. If you wants a constructive dialogs then you have to give space to others. Dilpreet Singh ping  21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let me summarise Dilpreet's major arguments -
  1. All the sources cited in the Amritpal article are state propaganda.
  2. The editors on that page are government-affiliated "state lobby".
  3. The editors are only pushing state-sponsored sources while ignoring sources offered by Dilpreet.
  4. Wikipedia is "biased against Sikhs" as they "don't have many accounts that meet the requirement for the semi-protected".
  5. Editors are not aware of the ground reality so they are defaming "drug healer" "bhai" Amritpal Singh.
  6. Protection on the page is Wikipedia's "conspiracy against Sikhs" to keep them away for the reasons mentioned in point #4. Mixmon (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let me make it easy, there are two concerns which I have :
    1. Balanced conversation.
    2. opportunity to edit/protect the article.
    check your points they are merely an explanation that you don't want a WP:BALANCE conversation. I repeated this many times in many ways and you are going in circle. Dilpreet Singh ping  22:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have blocked Dilpreet_Singh for three days for personal attacks after my warnings earlier today. I don't have much faith that they'll contribute constructively after the block, but it'll stop the immediate disruption while this discussion continues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it was @ThethPunjabi who made bigger personal attacks than Dilpreet here. Mixmon (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mixmon @ScottishFinnishRadish I supported Dilpreet's claim of possible conflict of interest in violation of WP:COI using diffs/links of past user history and citations. Therefore, there was no unsubstantiated personal attacks made against any user. I have remained civil in my tone of writing as well, even after Mixmon started writing uncivilly to me above, accusing me of "meanness", "You people can fall to such a low level", and "unlike you who are hell-bent on carrying out personal attacks and disregard to policies". Furthermore, I warned Dilpreet Singh above to not make unsubstantiated claims of COI without evidence (such as diffs) to support his assertions or else they will be viewed as personal attacks. ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluntly, everyone on that article that isn't some drive-by and is actually going to stay and defend their position should be given a warning for the India-Pakistan contentious topic area, with Singh probably being one of the worse ones due to the aspersions-casting. The topic area is a powderkeg; the last thing we need is nationalist bickering. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 04:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I took your point and tried to extend an olive branch at the article talk page just now but the other editors there accused me of “propaganda” now. So who is in the wrong when one tries to make amends and the others continue to attack, belittle, and argue with them? ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish and @Jéské Couriano, I'm not standing by what @Dilpreet Singh has said or done but the fragrant and blatant abuse of the page by Hindu nationalist accounts @Extorc @Mixmon @CrusaderForTruth2023 by refusing to listen to accounts who oppose the Indian government's actions in Punjab thereby destroying any neutrality and locking the page.
User @Extorc is refusing 'Requests to Edit' that do not agree with the Indian-state narrative.
For example, I requested an edit to remove an article by Indian-state backed media that was a blatant character assassination on the individual in question. I argued that the heavily pro-India narratives of these media outlets backed by the central government renders them unreliable sources when considering the context that said individual is an anti-Indian entity. Wikipedia policy on reliability of sources when considering context: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
In response @Extorc, rather amusingly, rejected it claiming I needed to provide another source on how the source in question was unreliable!
This is a blatant attempt to mischaracterise the article at a time when many will view it and needs urgent Administrative attention. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uproot Tyranny: I'm not defending anyone's behaviour on that page - not Singh's, not Mixmon's, not Random Drive-By IP Editor Wot Doesn't Read Anything #134i76238596847561, and not yours. The fact that this is the fourth time in three years that this exact situation has erupted at an article under WP:ARBIPA strongly suggests to me that more restrictions need to come, and it will very likely be XCP as the result of another Arbitration case in the vein of WP:ARBPIA4. I would sooner that not happen, as it'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but if the nationalist griping and edit-warring does not stop, that is where things are going to be headed. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is sad, I agree. Yes there should definitely be more introspection on the rules if this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Take care. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that you are not taking any one side, believe me. I, myself am neutral on the whole Amritpal Singh issue. The problem arises when the Wikipedia article of a preacher who does not believe in the idea of an Indian state contains unsubtantiated allegations of being 'funded by terror' 'having links with Pakistani Intelligence agencies' or claiming the preacher in question was 'making human bombs'. These claims, which are not true (As any non-Indian news article on the subject will state), have the intended effect of misrepresenting the individual in question during a time when many will seek to find out who this person was.
The problem seems to be that a particular group of Editors, some with special abilities (I am hesitent to call them Administrators as I do not know if they are) are using their powers in what seems to be a concentrated effort to dilute the truth. The fact that I have been targeted for investigation by one of these Editors(?) for raising similar points as others on the page looks like textbook intimidation to me.
I understand that this may seem like an exhausting, tiring and never-ending issue of 'nationalist griping' but the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous. Journalists, along with regular people, will be looking this individual up at this particular time. Thank you for reading. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you intended your little speech to be some form of mollification, all it does is convince me you're a partisan in the area and shouldn't be in it. No duh "the impact of how this article is displayed is enormous"; that's why the partisans on either side are trying to skew it. This isn't "Indian nationalists vs. everyone else", it's "Indian nationalists vs. Pakistani nationalists vs. everyone else". And "Everyone else" always fucking loses because the other two camps think they're Protestants or Catholics, Israelis or Palestinians, Azerbaijani or Armenians, Democrats or Republicans. The tribalism is the root cause of this, and you're just showing us that you're not as above the fray as you're claiming. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 00:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here to articulate the blatant injustice that I was seeing by the addition of false information from Indian media, that was then locked on the page by Hindu nationalist Admins and this is what I get back for trying to seek redress. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response, I have an investigation thrown at me and have received ZERO support from the Admin team. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, at this point given the reaction, I'll relent with the source being there, though it is blatantly untrue, if the article had both sides shown in the interest of neutrality, but this is not the case. The whole article is very one-sided and Pro-Indian Government and the 3/4 Hindu nationalist Editors/Admins have rejected the addition of the other side.
We can go back and forth about one particular source but the bigger issue is this: At least allow editors to put the both sides in the article before locking it. The bottom line is that it is a very biased article and it needs to be more neutral. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an open investigation about Uproot Tyranny being a sock of Dilpreet Singh Who is blocked for 72 hours here >>> 20:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What open investigation? What a joke.
What a baseless lie! Does that mean @ThethPunjabi @CalicoMo @CanadianSingh1469 @Usingh0663 or the countless others trying to seek neutrality in the article 'socks' of Dilpreet Singh?? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I went down a bit of a rabit hole looking this thing up (its around 5 AM in my country right now and I should probably got to sleep, so pardon any confusing english). The common theme I see on the talk page is 1) Uneccessarily wordy arguments 2) Failure to adequately separate discussions regarding different topics and 3) General disregard for the application of WP policies, instead choosing to adopt whatever felt 'about right'. The TP is a mess and is unlikely to bear fruit unless there is a drastic improvement in the actions of editors involved. Additionally, I think the page would benefit from a longer ECP; being rather controvertial with little likelyhood of improvement in the next few days. Will probably add to this later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course you want a longer ECP, you completely disregarded everything I said as 'unsubstantial' even though I gave you 6 references!
    Extending the ECP only serves to solidify the Indian Government narrative over the article in question.
    Why is it so hard to accept that Indian news media is actively pro-government? You suggested that I should take up the reliability concerns at RSN; which I agreed with, you didn't need to add the petty remarks like "but I doubt you'll find any takers" or taking a jab at me for using the word 'ponder'
    Again, it is an established fact that Indian news media is state-backed. I have given you credible sources as references, extending the ECP without addressing these issue will only embolden the Hindu nationalist editors and adminstrators who had already locked the page with blatant falsehoods from state-backed Indian news media. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it is not an "established fact." It's a widely-held presumption. I happen to agree with it, largely, but that's a long way from an "established fact." With that, you seem to be under the impression that because many people dislike the spin that much of the Indian news media uses, you and your comrades therefore justified in edit warring. This is absolutely not the case.

    If a particular source is cited in WP:RSPSOURCES as unreliable when it comes to politics, then raise the issue for that particular source. If you think a source should be listed, make your case at the appropriate noticeboard, and accept the consensus that results. Those sum up your options. Complaining because you think an article reads the way that the Modi government might like is not one of those options. Ravenswing 00:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I am not trying to 'edit-war' I am trying to showcase how Indian Press cannot be used as a reliable source for an Anti-Indian state entity. Fine, it doesn't need to be an established fact (Even though, it pretty much is), even if it is a widely-help presumption, the usage of Indian news media, which will always favour the integrity of India, to make unsubstantiated unreferenced claims that a preacher was making 'human bombs' is always going to be an unreliable source. Maybe not for everything but for this particular context, YES. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Putting aside the issue of the sourcing, which could have a disclaimer of sorts, the bottom line is that the article is very one-sided and attempts of adding anything of non-Government narrative has been consistently denied and rejected. All I am asking for is a neutral article. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said, lack of policy based arguments. Would also recommend reading WP:RGW. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davidcannon's BLPs[edit]

A thread I started at the BLP noticeboard has been archived. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created several BLPs consisting almost entirely of unsourced contentious information (see Samuela Matakibau as an example of one which was outright deleted as a G10). I was hoping more eyes (especially from adminstrators who likely have more experience dealing with situations like this) would be useful. I strongly suggest reading the thread and other linked conversations there to understand the underlying context. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that I have manually un-archived that BLPN thread, which as far as I can tell, Davidcannon did not reply to. It now can be found here. El_C 05:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fairness and upon closer look, Davidcannon's last contribution was early Feb. The list in that thread may be of import, though, and perhaps a dedicated subpage would work better. El_C 05:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for manually unarchiving the BLP noticeboard thread, I wasn't aware that I was allowed to do that. Biographies of dead people have similar issues too, I just tried to keep it relevant to that noticeboard so I wouldn't say my list is complete. Some article subjects have died since article creation (see Esala Teleni as an example of what I mean). Davidcannon does seem to edit intermittently (even if the last one was early Feb) so I was hoping that maybe they'd see the talk page messages and participate in some sort of cleanup or offer their thoughts about all of this. Maybe I'll hear something in a few months? I do find it concerning that an admin has created content that was described in the previous thread as being redaction-worthy if a new editor did it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clovermoss, no problem. Not sure if you'd be allowed to do it (probably yes), but as an uninvolved admin, I definitely am. Though, again, maybe a subpage dedicated to cleanup from that list would be better. You might also consider contacting ArbCom about this, as such editing likely falls short of the expectations from an administrator, even though no admin tools were used (that I gathered). I'm afraid that I haven't reviewed the material closely enough to comment further beyond that general advise and note. @The Wordsmith, Ritchie333, and IdiotSavant: courtesy pings. El_C 06:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also mirrored the list on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fiji#BLPs created by User:Davidcannon, so hopefully they'll get some attention. If they're tagged for cleanup in WikiProject Fiji, then I might get round to them (I'm gradually working my way down the list there, though also focusing on quick jobs and deferring bigger ones).
Referencing standards do seem to have been lower in the past; possibly the problem is that these articles haven't seen the improvement that other areas of wikipedia have received.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A spot check of those articles and I didn’t find any Davidcannon had touched in years. And, yes, in 2005 standards were way different (and lower). Courcelles (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true that pretty much all of their article creations are years old even if some of them are way more recent than 2005. I just think that if I were in their shoes and standards had drastically changed for something I spent the majority of my time here doing and I was still editing... I'd just try to do something about it. Maybe that's just me. I'm mostly just concerned about the BLP implications right now. Not everything is terrible, I mentioned that at the BLPN thread. That's why I mentioned that it was important to look at the context here. I also appreciate all that IdiotSavant has been doing. As for the dedicated subpage, maybe that'd work or get more eyes than the one at WikiProject Fiji? Or everything could just be centralized there. The only reason I figured out these articles existed was because I was trying to organize Category:All unreferenced BLPs in my sandbox. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El C: I haven't seen any evidence of tool misuse from an adminstrative standpoint although I suppose I'm not really qualified to make that decision. The redaction-worthy content if a new editor did it was a reference to 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial [101]. But that was 2004. In general I like to think of admins as people who are experienced in current Wikipedia policy and someone I'd look up to. Having an article exist like this for almost two decades doesn't meet my definition of that but other editors may draw that line elsewhere. I'm not sure what ArbCom could realistically do in this situation, though. I doubt it'd be actionable from that perspective. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clovermoss, oh, I thought some of these were created or significantly contributed to by Davidcannon at least in the 2010s. But if they were all created around 2005 (the year I became an admin), then I'd agree with what Courcelles said wrt admin expectations (within reason, depending on the severity of the violations, obviously). I dunno, maybe there's pages I created or significantly contributed to that also suffer from serious problems by 'modern' BLP standards — I don't think that's the case, but it is a possibility. In any case, I think repairing BLP problems should be the priority. El_C 15:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El C: There was this article creation from 2015 [102] for Willem Ouweneel but the bulk of their article creations were from 2004-2007. There were a few handfuls from 2015. Does that help? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kinda not really. It's a long list of pages with no dates or diffs/excerpts with the accompanying violations attached, so it's hard for me to tell atm. But it seems more folks than myself are familiar with these issues, so as things stand, I'll probably leave to them for the time being. El_C 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the courtesy ping. As the deleting admin for those two articles, I can confirm that I didn't see any evidence of tool misuse or anything like that. I do think it would be a good idea (when this thread is closed) to notify Davidcannon that these articles are far out of line with current BLP standards (though 2005-2007 standards were much looser) and new articles can't be created like that, and request that if he decides to create new articles or do content work in the future to make sure he brushes up on modern standards. I don't think going to Arbcom or taking disciplinary action here would have any real preventative purpose, as long as there are no new issues. I'm more concerned with the amount of cleanup that has to be done, and hopefully we can get some sort of group effort going to review these articles and source or delete them (though from what I understand, political events in Fiji have caused a number of sources to be permanently lost and unrecoverable so sourcing might be difficult). The WordsmithTalk to me 17:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El C: I could be more thorough if you'd be interested. I took a quick glance at each of their 600+ article creations around the time I started the BLPN thread. The vast majority are just basic uncontroversial stubs of Fijian politicians. But it's mixed in with some articles that focus almost exclusively on the subject's wrongdoing or investigation from the nation (like the G10 mentioned above and Laisa Digitaki). I can't see the deleted content anymore because I'm not an admin, but I remember those being quite bad. My concern, like yours, is pritorizing cleaning up the BLP violations. iirc, a lot of these articles in their current state wouldn't meet WP:NCRIME. I posted here after the BLPN thread was archived because The Wordsmith suggested ANI as a possible course of action when I was first showing them the problems I had identified with these article creations. As for Willem Ouweneel, if a new editor had submitted this through the modern AfC process [103], it likely would be declined. I think 2015 standards were a bit higher than that, but as I said, the bulk of their creations are from 2004-2007. So my concerns are broad and mostly that articles written about people aren't up to current policy standards (whether that's BLP violations or notability). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention that wrt recent stuff / ArbCom, I might have conflated the Explicit AN thread with this one. El_C 17:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well since it doesn't really seem like ANI is the best place for this specific situation, maybe this should be closed now that the BLPN thread has been unarchived? I just didn't want my concerns to go unaddressed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a list of all Davidcannon's creations in case it's helpful. With no new articles since 2015, there's probably no need for any sanctions at the moment, but obviously we'll have a problem if there are more BLP issues in future. Note that since he isn't autopatrolled, any new articles will now go through NPP, which will at least provide an extra set of eyes. (Oh, and thank you, Clovermoss, for your watchfulness here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CrusaderForTruth2023 - gaming[edit]

CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user has made tons of small edits to Leeladhar Jagudi, Giriraj Kishore (writer), PM-SHRI Scheme over the last couple of days. The user is also an involved party at Amritpal Singh (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (also see ANI § Dilpreet Singh and mess at Talk:Amritpal Singh (activist) above). The user is clearly WP:GAMING for EC rights [purportedly to edit the ECP Amritpal Singh (activist) page, judging by the fact that they edited it before it was ECP'd]. I'd recommend a watch over the user. The username might as well be against the policy as it seem to be disruptive (also see [104]) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 05:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a quick review, I agree that the user appears to have gamed the system to get ECP-confirmed. For example:
Their other edits indicate that this was not a result of technical incompetence or network/device issues. Worse, the editor has used the newly acquired ECP right to edit-war at EC-protected and in-the-news article, Rahul Gandhi, potentially violating WP:3RR. For now, I'll drop a 3RR warning on their talkpage and inform them that they are looking at a topic-ban from Indian politics, or other sanctions, unless such disruptive conduct stops. Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it technically possible to withdraw the user's ill-gotten extended-confirmed status, Abecedare? Though I actually think they're a hairs-breadth away from an indef. Bishonen | tålk 03:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Bishonen: Technically: yes. In practice: I don't know and would be happy to be informed either way. Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abecedare@BishonenWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive341#Admin has removed my account's extended confirmed user rights may help. After the discussion of the particular user there is more general discussion by sever admins of whether it had happened before (Spoiler:It has, need justification). Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I have removed the ec status, which I don't think the user should get to keep despite the apology below. Then I restored the confirmed status, which had unexpectedly disappeared with the ec and which I had not intended to remove. Could you please check if it looks right, Abe and Slywriter? And I'll just mention, re the "relatively new editor" statement below, that the user has been here for six years. Bishonen | tålk 04:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. As both of us advised on CrusaderForTruth2023's talkpage, the editor will hopefully use the ECP-free time to familiarize themselves with wikipedia's content policies and practices, which they missed learning about in their rush to get ECPed confirmed by making meaningless edits to boost the edit-count. Unless someone else has something to add, I suppose this ANI report can be closed as resolved for now. Abecedare (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do tender unconditional apology for my actions if they might have caused any harm to anyone. Although I would like to clarify that I have never engaged in editing without clear source or tried to violate any WP in my edits.
Still, being a relatively new editor, I do solicit guidance in editing Wikipedia so it would be helpful if messages are left on my Talkpage regarding any problematic action I might have did (I will surely acknowledge the same and revert back with justification or not try to do the same action again).
Thanks. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just trying to clarify the legitimacy of an editor's tactic.[edit]

Sorry for bothering you again, I'm just trying to clarify the legitimacy of a technique. I made a complaint about a user back in February [105] The jist was:

Today I saw that the user <user name>, after being knocked back in a failed RfC on [106] (they were directed to the Marxist cultural analysis article as an alternate place to edit) they immediately created a merge for that page (Marxist cultural analysis aimed merging it with the much broader topic of Culture studies) - in order to, I presume, get rid of the obstacle/argument by merging the article. This manipulation seems to be part of their ongoing project to revive 'Cultural Marxism' as having currency or modern political relevance.

I came here to ask about this er... tactic, because I've just reverted similar on the page for Cultural Bolshevism, where they performed a merger without discussion, then slashed the merged content by half. This is a topic related to Cultural Marxism (just as Marxist Cultural Analysis is), and my original complaint was that they were attempting to WP:OWN the topic area. I see they're also active in a large range of culture war topics (stemming from GamerGate), and I fear they may have done similar types of... "vandalism?" elsewhere. So is this sort of thing approved on Wikipedia? Or does this warrant keeping an eye on this user? Like I say, last time I asked I didn't get a response, probably because the discussion was flooded with walls of text from involved editors (as things related to "Cultural Marxism" tend to be). Any response by someone who might know is appreciated. (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making good faith merge proposals is not a "tactic", nor have I been "caught" doing it as has been implied. On the other hand, starting an ANI thread "just trying to clarify" without notifying me is certainly a tactic.
This Australian IP has been taking it on themsevles to drop by my talk page every few months to tell me what a horrible editor I am.
Their latest move is undoing a merge that I closed and completed 8 months ago. After doing some light reorganization at Degenerate art, I thought it would be improved by merging Cultural Bolshevism into it. There were several comments 2-3 years old on the Talk:Cultural Bolshevism of other editors also thinking it was too short or ought to be merged.
I completely followed the steps at WP:MERGEPROP. I closed it after a week without discussion per WP:MERGECLOSE Any user, including the user who first proposed the merger, may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. Any procedural grounds for undoing the merge are completely spurious.
The IP says I deleted half the content. If they had bothered to start with the talk page instead of ANI I could have told them the half they're looking for is in the section "Weimar reactionism". After I copied the text, I refactored it according to chronology or theme. The combined article is a complete treatment that is better than either article standing alone. Backing out the Bolshevism content from Degenerate art at this point should be a non-starter.
It is unclear what the IP wants the content to look like. They have not discussed the content at all. The sole issue they have raised is that I am the person who did the merge. They've also taken to casting aspersions on my essay talk page.[107]
I have resisted calling for boomerangs before, because I'd rather focus on content, but there's really no content position in play at this point. The IP is simply pursuing a vendetta against me, trying to disrupt or obstruct things just because of my involvement. Please make them stop. Sennalen (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP is being unduly aggressive, but at the same time... the article had previously survived both AFD and another merge request (to a different target, but nonetheless, discussion shows a fairly strong consensus both times that it was worth its own article.) I do think you were overly-hasty to merge after no replies; WP:CCC, but concluding that a consensus of numerous editors has been overturned by WP:SILENCE is fairly bold, so I think it's worth slowing down once someone objects, even a while later. Normally when a discussion like that doesn't get enough replies, there are places you can poke to attract more discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 2015 a merge with Cultural Marxism was rejected. I'm sure you can appreciate how that's a different can of worms than simply the general concept of a merge. It seems most people only care when the culture war is involved. Silence seemed enough when the only talk page activity in the prior two years was a comment the article was too short and someone suggesting a merge to Art in Nazi Germany. Sennalen (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silence is only consensus until someone objects - in this case someone did. You might have been justified in doing the initial merge, but you weren't when you started reverting to preserve it. MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think going up to 2 reverts was entirely warranted given the history of IP and the lack of any real reason in the edit summaries.
Now the IP has the wider discussion they wanted, so the question is whether anyone actually has something to discuss about the content. Sennalen (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now Aquillion is removing text from Degenerate art. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of slowing down and discussing. Sennalen (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing against consensus at Sheikh Hasina[edit]

AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sheikh Hasina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently I closed an RFC at Sheikh Hasina dealing with the lead, which followed a go-around at DRN and significant edit warring. After I closed the RFC it was pointed out that the article had not returned to the status quo on my talk page. I did some investigating, and prior to the major outbreak of the dispute and edit warring, there seemed to be a reasonable status quo to return to. At that point, I recommended that the article return to the lead from October 27th at Talk:Sheikh Hasina#Status quo.

Since then a clear consensus of editors, most importantly editors uninvolved in the original dispute such as Seraphimblade, Vinegarymass911 (sorry to pull you two into this crap yet again), and myself have identified the late October lead as the status quo ante from before the dispute. Two editors, A.Musketeer([108][109][110]) and LucrativeOffer([111][112][113][114][115]) have refused to accept that consensus, and are continuing to edit war their prefered lead from the RFC into the article. It takes two sides to edit war, and AMomen88 is also edit warring back to the consensus status quo version, though I am less conerned because there is a clear consensus for the version they're reverting to and they're not reverting to their preferred RFC outcome. It's certainly not ideal, which is why I'm seeking some resolution here.

I think a clear statement from the community that they need to stop edit warring and accept the consensus about the status quo on the talk page should take care of the disruption. If they don't accept the consensus, and the edit warring continues, they should be subject to partial blocks from the page starting at a week and escalating from there. I am specifically not interested in any discussion on the content here, only on the editing against consensus. The content can be hashed out on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the discussion. Apologies if I do not understand anything correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish could you please tell us how Vinegarymass911 is an uninvolved editor when it was already pointed out to you that he had previously engaged in edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version? Also, could you please tell us who first introduced you to the October version as the status quo and how you came to the conclusion that it is the status quo? LucrativeOffer (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vinegarymass911 made a single edit to revert to what they saw as the status quo before that particular edit war broke out, asking you to take it to the talk page, and then made no further edits to the article and made a single edit to the RFC, and did not contribute to the DRN. I would say that there is a shade of involvement in the months long back and forth, but it seemed they were trying to head off the edit war. Their making a single edit, versus the absolute shitload (I stopped counting at a dozen, but that was still in December) you made isn't exactly engag[ing] in an edit war in the article to reinstate AMomen88's desired version. Seraphimblade and myself are entirely uninvolved.
As I linked to above this is when it was brought up on my talk page by AMomen88, providing a version from October 28th. Looking at the history, it is clear that this edit on October 28th was the one that began the dispute about the lead, and the lead was more-or-less stable before that. So looking at when the lead was a) changed in a way that led to a dispute and b) reasonably stable, I determined the status quo.
Seraphimblade (who supported the lead you supported in the RFC), Vinegarymass911, AMomen88 (who's edit to the lead is not included in the status quo), and myself agree that this as the status quo. A.Musketeer and yourself do not. At this point there are two uninvolved editors, one editor that is barely involved, and one editor that was involved in the dispute agreeing, and two editors who were involved disagreeing, and edit warring to keep the version they supported during the RFC, which was never a stable version. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. So in summary, you came out from your earlier position that Vinegarymass911 is an "uninvolved editor", to "barely involved". It also appears that AMomen88 is the one who introduced you to the late October versions of the article as status quo and you immediately agreed without consulting the other side of the dispute.
Here is my observation - Sheikh Hasina is a controversial topic and has always been in dispute. It was also pointed out to you by A.Musketeer that the article was a battleground even in October, showing diffs of edit-warring in that month, which makes the late October versions unstable. Yet, you kept arguing it to be the status quo. There was no edit war in the article between 15 January and 10 March, the duration of the RfC, which makes the version at the end of the RfC to be the most stable. The dispute began when AMomen88 started to remove contents that are critical of the subject, hence, I am not surprised he proposed the late October versions as status quo to you since they are devoid of those contents.
In my opinion, ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled about the nature of the dispute which also impairs their judgement about the consensus forming in this case. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not much has changed in the past two months. The two principal editors came to DRN. After trying to act as a neutral moderator, it was my opinion that at least one of them, and probably both of them, were trying to game the system by appearing to be on the side of the moderator. I failed the moderated discussion, and started the RFC. It appears that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has picked up where I left off, and made progress by identifying the status quo ante version of the article, and found that there was no consensus on the lede, and now the principals are again trying to game the system and appear to be on the side of the moderator (who isn't on a side). The community should thank User:ScottishFinnishRadish for his efforts. I think that the partial blocks proposed by SFR are a minimum remedy at this point. I would support any length of topic-bans at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a question, although it need not affect the resolution of the dispute. Is Bangladesh within the scope of the India and Pakistan contentious topic? It isn't necessary to answer, because I think that the community will be able to handle this dispute by partial blocks and topic bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like it's own nation, and isn't explicitly called out in WP:ARBPIA, so I'm not sure. It feels like it should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bangladesh was part of Pakistan for about 25 years but has been independent for over 50 years, and they're over 1,000 miles apart, so WP:ARBIPA wouldn't normally apply. In this case, the article's subject wasn't prominent before independence and the disputed lead doesn't mention Pakistan or, her date of birth aside, the pre-independence period. NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beyond NebY's comments, simple proximity shouldn't matter ... or do we lump in Bhutan, say, as well? The measure should really be rather simple: is there a history of edit warring over Bangladeshi articles, above and beyond the normal run of partisan politics? (No doubt, for instance, we can find a controversial political article or three from damn near every country on Earth.) Ravenswing 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant more along the lines of Poland being in central Europe, but being part of the EE CTOP, and WP:GSCASTE covering Bangladesh makes it feel like it might be covered. As Robert says above though, we're more than capable of handling this without fancy sanctions, so input on the issue at hand is still very welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I don't think that User:ScottishFinnishRadish has been misled as to the nature of the dispute, but there may be an unsuccessful effort to mislead SFR as to the nature of the dispute, an attempt to misuse the services of a moderator, but it appears that SFR has seen through that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading the deliberations, I have to say it is impressive the extent of the chicanery being resorted too. User:LucrativeOffer is aware there is no consensus for their soapbox lead and as a result they are clutching at straws attempting to use ad hominin to question the integrity of editors. I do not want to relitigate but for the record, the dispute began when LucrativeOffer reverted my edits calling them "promotional" without evidence, this was reverted by User:Vinegarymass911 who urged them to avoid edit warring and discuss, a plea which was roundly ignored. They then proceeded to insert their own lead and ignored calls to refrain from edit warring. I recognise the fact that the lead I produced has no consensus, which is why I have refrained from inserting it, I do not understand why LucrativeOffer and User:A.Musketeer are incapable of doing the same. The lead of 27 October which I support as the status quo contains content which is critical of the subject, I reverted LucrativeOffer's edits not because it contained critical content but because it was poorly written blatant politicking which made unsourced claims, it has no place on Wikipedia, such a lead would be better placed on Medium. I was attempting to revert to the status quo which has been recognised as such by quite literally everyone involved in this discussion including supporters of Lede A, Lede B and uninvolved editors, only two partisan editors who want to insert their preferred lead oppose this. To date all of the bans which have been enacted against me have been as a result of my endeavours to insert this status quo version. LucrativeOffer in particular seems to have an insatiable zeal to edit war whether its on Sheikh Hasina or 2013 Shapla Square protests where they added their opinion without citing a source and continuously reinserted this biased POV content despite multiple reversions from different editors, they were rightly banned for this misconduct. Proportionate measures should be taken to deter such disruptive behaviour, an ascending Tban is perhaps an appropriate option.—AMomen88 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • LucrativeOffer has quite thoroughly summed up the dispute and I have nothing much to add here. I have shown my concerns about the proposed status quo by ScotishFinnishRadish but for some reasons they were ignored by him. I will stick to my assertion that there is no evidence of any consensus regarding which version is the status quo. I do not recall any incident where I have been uncivil in this dispute, neither any occasion where I edited against the policies and guidelines in this dispute. I have faith in the community and will accept any decision taken here. I just have one confusion here. The allegation against me is that I edited against consensus and ScottishFinnishRadish has shared my diffs from 03:01, 11 March 2023. But the discussion on the status quo itself started on 17:47, 11 March 2023. How can you reach a consensus before even starting the discussion?
Robert McClenon which two principal editors are you talking about who gamed the system? If that includes me and since you are a proposing a topic ban, can you show some evidence with diffs where I gamed the system? I was invited to discuss in the DRN and I responded. All my statements were civil as far as I recall.
Before any decision is taken, I would urge the community to also shed light on AMomen88's conduct which has been testing our good faith for several months and have been appalling to say the least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive conduct by AMomen88[edit]

Edit Warring - AMomen88 has violated 3RR straight three times on this article with no consensus for his poorly sourced POV edits in last December to January for which he was blocked thrice within a month. [116], [117], [118]. The article's history clearly shows there has been no change in his behaviour and he continues to edit war without consensus. The DRN also became stalemate when he started edit-warring as the discussion was going against him.

Casting aspersions - Leaves an edit summary: "it is clear the editor has a vested interest", besides, numerous other personal attacks against other editors.

Canvassing - Every time a discussion takes place he would make no delay to leave inappropriate messages to editors with similar POV to support him in the dispute and keeps on forcing them until they respond. For instance, when the RfC started and Solomon The Magnifico expressed his disinterest to participate, AMomen88 reminds him of previous favors in an ANI discussion. AMomen88 keeps on pursuing when Solomon The Magnifico remains uninterested. Finally he expresses his "disappointment" and calls Solomon The Magnifico "disingenuous". All these despite repeated suggestions to not engage in canvassing, [119], [120].

It is quite amusing to see him still allowed to edit with such level of disruptions, misconduct and competence issues. If a topic ban is being proposed against me for editing against an invisible consensus, I guess AMomen88 doesn't deserve anything less than an indefinite ban at least. A.Musketeer (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban Three Editors[edit]

I propose that the situation be resolved by topic-banning User:A.Musketeer, User:LucrativeOffer, and User:AMomen88 from the topic of Sheikh Hasina, broadly defined, for three months, and that they be partially blocked from the article on Sheikh Hasina.

  • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, as the three of them make the article uneditable for other users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The inability of these editors to resolve their strong but superficial disagreement about the lead section, which is just a summary of the body, only shows how they are not currently making any substantive improvements to the article, while making it more difficult for others to get involved at the same time. —Alalch E. 09:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The only action I have taken is to restore a status quo version which has been recognised as such. If restoring the status quo is worthy of a Tban I am dumbfounded. I am a regular contributor to Bangladeshi Wikipedia, an area often neglected in what can be a Anglo/European centric community. LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer are both inactive users, this is not my opinion but a fact based on their meagre contributions. The few contributions they have made have been of a poor quality and heavily skewed, something for which they have both been blocked on multiple occasions. This report was made in response to the disruptive behaviour of two editors, LucrativeOffer and A.Musketeer, who edited against overwhelming consensus, I do not know on what grounds I was added to the report.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insertion of self-published source into multiple articles - "Holroyd-Doveton"[edit]

Keeping history alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and before them Dovetonpoots1and2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been inserting references to Holroyd-Doveton, John (2013). Maxim Litvinov: A Biography. Woodland Publications. ISBN 978-0957296107. and Holroyd-Doveton. History of the Young Conservatives. into multiple articles (my first quick scan indicates about 20) about figures like Anthony Eden, Neville Chamberlain, Georgy Chicherin, Ivan Maisky, etc. The sources are self-published and not as far as I can see WP:RS. The insertions go back a number of years, so can't be easily undone owing to intervening edits. So, 1) this looks like a long-term spam attempt, 2) these are not obscure articles about obscure people, they are some of the most significant figures of the 20th Century and we seem to have a significant, long-term, sourcing problem - I haven't looked at them all but Chamberlain is a Featured Article.

I would ask, 1) has anyone dealt with this particular source before, have there been any other accounts adding this author? 2) What's the best way to go about cleaning up? I do have to go out for the afternoon, but will be back online this evening, British time. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They certainly look non-RS, and Maxim Litvinov: A Biography has some bad amazon reviews, which is about the only reviews I can find. I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects to start pulling prose willy-nilly, but anything that can easily be undone probably should be. On a final note, any edit with the summary adding useful info from respectable & legitimate sources is not adding info from a respectable and legitimate source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am working closely with the author of Maxim Litvinov and he kindly asked me to add the excerpts. I checked all sources before submitting but if you aren't happy to approve them then that's fair enough. Keeping history alive (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read WP:COI, and do not insert links to these unreliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also noticed this source (Maxim Litvinov: A Biography) being frequently cited in Maxim Litvinov, which I recently copy-edited for a requester at the GOCE Requests page. Source-checking is not something I generally involve myself with during the c/e process but I shall notify the requester of this thread. The article did seem rather laudatory to me. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found a brief biography of the author: After a successful legal career John Holroyd-Doveton resumed his schoolboy passion in history in obtaining his Open university degree, he was required to write a dissertation, choosing as his subject a defence of Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement before the Second World War. This sparked a fascination in Litvinov and after meeting Litvinov’s daughter Tanya it increased his determination to write this biography of the only prominent communist politician to have an English wife.
An amateur historian, definitely not an RS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also an WP:SPA, here only to insert this source into articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other fans of this author include: Douglian30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (briefly) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommend that this is taken to WP:RSN to gain wider, unbiased consensus on whether the book is a WP:RS. My feeling is that it is not, for the reasons I stated above. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaithi warriors of Bihar[edit]

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

There are three new users whose main focus is on the two writing systems of the Bhojpuri language. They're expunging mentions of what is still by far the most commonly used script for the language (Devanagari) and replacing it with an obsolete script that is however undergoing some sort of revival (Kaithi). When they aren't doing that, they're doing something else that's equally disruptive, like moving articles against the naming conventions, making up language codes, etc. These users are:

They all probably mean well, fighting for what they believe to be the truth, but they absolutely refuse to understand how the encyclopedia works. I'm not even sure they understand English (I previously left a message to लोहरान telling them, in a language they almost certainly understand, that they can edit the Bhojpuri-language Wikipedia instead, but that seemed to have had no effect). – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Highly inappropriate language and attitude[edit]

I am not yet very familiar with all the acronyms or other tools used on WP, so I will say it mostly in plain English. I wish to report User:MarshallBagramyan for presumptious, highly insulting, rude, ethnically and nationally hateful, and ethnic POV speech (starting with “Official Turkish talking points will not fly here.”) in her/his last reply to User:Hudavendigar (Murat) in the first topic (“On Primary Sources”) of the current Talk page of the Burning of Smyrna article, This particular topic was closed after that reply. When I first noticed this, I was more concerned about explaining my edits to an editor, so I let it go for the time being. Apparently, no one else has noticed or cared, although, in my view, this should have been reported long ago. I notice that the person in question is a long-timer on WP, but that does not excuse the language nor the attitude. I have also noticed in her/his replies to User:Utku Öziz, User:Hudavendigar, and User:BitikciKebbenek, all very civil in their talks, that s/he acts like the sole authority on how it all works as well as what references and scholars are acceptable in an article, using that as an excuse to delete edits not to her/his liking. Therefore, I wish to add “intimidation” to my report. WP:RS says that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”, and therefore User:MarshallBagramyan cannot be an authority (let alone the sole authority) unless he can prove, not just talk, that published sources are not reliable. (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addendum: All parties named above have been notified properly. (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: The above is from October 2022.  // Timothy :: talk  02:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some background from this IP:

  • This IP has some strict criteria regardling who they will accept in dealing with this, you can find their criteria here [121]. So unless you can atest to your ethinic and religious background, you might be rejected as biased (I apparently pass, but Robert McClendon did not).
  • Here are some talk page threads:
Other insightful posts:
There history will show more, but I believe the above should be considered in evidence of a DE NOTHERE block.  // Timothy :: talk  01:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't fail the unregistered editor's ethnic tests; I declined to answer the questions. (I agree with the block.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I looked back and the statement I was remembered regarding you was actually:
"I am a bit concerned that you have listed your religious denomination on your web page."
 // Timothy :: talk  20:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EC, but you wrote substantially what I was going to. This should also been looked at, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1179#Propaganda on Wikipedia pages.
For a timeline break down of this IPs actions in the last 8 weeks or so for everyone else. They edited with an disruptive ethnic POV in a contentious area under DS. They then went to DRN (see link above for DRN thread) and attempted to apply a religious/ethnic POV litmus test to volunteers attempting to help them at DRN [127]. They started an ill-advised thread at the teahouse (see above for link), accusing everyone who has disagreed with them of being "paid propagandists" and sockpuppets. They were notified of discretionary sanctions in that area (User talk: to contentious topics). They ended up blocked for a week [128] for disruptive editing. And since returning from their block nearly a month ago have evinced some serious WP:BATTLE and WP:IDHT mentality, being completely unwilling or unable to drop the stick. They were advised by multiple editors to return to some constructive editing, preferably in an area not under DS. They have not. Now we are here. Heiro 01:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've blocked the IP for a month on the basis of that set of ethnically-bigoted conditions for interaction. That kind of thing is entirely unacceptable, and renders the person behind the IP incapable of applying unbiased editorial judgment. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Myself and a few others opined the same thing a month ago when they got their week long block for DS. I was hoping to be proved wrong when they returned, but personally did not think that would actually happen. Since then they have shown an increasing inability to drop the stick, obsessing over this one issue (see every edit they made since their boock expired, it's literally every single edit). They display a serious ethnic/religious POV and are WP:NOTHERE for anything else. We'll see what they say ina month, if they return. But I do not see them changing at all. Heiro 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left them a note in a probably vain attempt to head that off. We’ll see how it goes. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Acroterion: We've now seen how that went, they've asked for unblock. It's a doozy. Heiro 07:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't say I'm surprised. If that recurs, I'll turn off talkpage access, and maybe extend the block. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be good to consider an e-e topic ban in addition to the one month block.  // Timothy :: talk  03:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked if Turkey fell under e-e and was told no. Honestly, I think we need a Continuous Topics for Turkey. I'm tempted to put together a Community Sanctions request but it would take a while EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whereas I asked ArbCom to create a single unified Western Asia DS/CT that would encompass Turkey alongside WP:KURDS, WP:AA3, and WP:ARBIRP, and was also told no. I specifically mentioned Turkey as the principal gap alongside those three sanction regimes. I don't remember if I also included WP:BALKANS (WP:ARBEE), as well, but I don't think I did (though I should have). I'd support a WP:GS, though, so please ping me if and or when that is proposed. El_C 06:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If one was on the table, I'd support it. But I'm not really sure it will deter this editor in any way. They have not once shown they understand wikipolicy (although for a very new editor they make a big show of trying to explain them badly to everyone else and how every one else is in error), or that they could in any way have been the one violating it themselves. From the get go they have called everyone who disagrees with them an assorted variety of PAs, the most often used being "paid propagandists" or insinuating everyone is a sock. They double down on it in their current unblock request, accusing TimothyBlue of either being a sockpuppet or a member of a cabal of "good old boys" aligned against them. I do not think this person is ready for Wikipedia. I think the only thing that will deter this editor is to be shown the door.Heiro 07:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have never thought Turkey wasn’t covered under e-e. I'm not versed in the Byzantine world AE, but it seems that Turkey is at the intersection of so many AE areas that state are “Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic.”, it is strange that Turkey is not covered. I don’t see how Eastern Europe broadly construed could omit Turkey, seems like a hole that needs filling or at least clarification, I can't be the only one under this misimpression. AE needs to be much more layman friendly in their information.  // Timothy :: talk  07:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also wouldn't include Turkey (generally) under EE, and not all of Turkey articles under Kurds (although quite a few are going to make it in).
I'm neutral on Turkey having a GS/CT category in terms of need (I could well imagine it's in that wheelhouse), but while having distinct GS/CT categories for everything would make what is already a bureaucracy nightmare worse, the opposite also eliminates the possibility of nuance when limiting individuals or areas. It's a spectrum of suitability and ease. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that there's all this overlap with these sanction regimes, that may include Turkey—on the GS front also including WP:SCW—but serious gaps still remain. Gaps that continue to present themselves with some regularity. El_C 14:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, here is the clarification request regarding E-E: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_117#Clarification request: Eastern Europe (January 2021)
It might be useful to propose a more meta category that will encompass and supersede multiple existing topics? Something like "Ethnic conflicts in Western and Southern Asia" which would include WP:ARBIP, WP:AA2, WP:GS/AA, WP:KURDS, WP:ARBPIA4, WP:GS/ISIL, and possible WP:UYGHUR. But honestly the more I think about it, the less useful this seems. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My ARCA is in turn @#Non-ARBPIA Western Asia disruption (February 2022). No, I don't think a super-merger like that makes sense, but I believe a more limited one does. El_C 17:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uproot Tyranny[edit]

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

Disregards WP policy in favour of whatever he believes to be appropriate (such as using Press Freedom Index to declare all Indian sources as unreliable [129][130] and "Indian State Sponsored Media"). Repeated WP:IDHT [131] and WP:RGW. Personal attacks (accusing others of being "Hindu Nationalist editors and admins" after page was ECP protected to prevent edit warring [132]). Overall, quite clearly WP:NOTHERE. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Account appeared soon after an editor with the same agenda (Dilpreet Singh) was blocked. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Account has been blocked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) as WP:NOTHERE Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Incompetent editor[edit]

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

This user's modus is hard to describe, but most of their edits center around feathered dinosaurs. They often use poor grammar and improperly formatted citations (see here and here for a huge bunch). They also misrepresented sources, (this one rewrites a passage so that it claims the opposite of what the source says about a dinosaur's bone anatomy, and this one obfuscates the wording to hide the fact that the study doubted that a certain dinosaur was semi-aquatic), added long rants of original research/commentary to support their claims (like this), and engage in slow edit warring to add their claims in slightly different language each time. Unlike most problematic editors, this one communicates, but their talk page posts are often incomprehensible and often consist of copy-pasted content (including from copyrighted scientific papers, which I believe is due to them not being a native speaker of English; one reply somehow contains a reply button labeled "odpowiedz", which is Polish); the editor also forum-shops (they have posted the same exact rant on four different talk pages). Several edits also appear to be biased against the presence of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs, which has been the scientific consensus since 1996 (see here, here and here). This write-up may not do it justice, but it is getting really difficult to deal with this editor, especially the slow edit war they've been waging on Halszkaraptor for more than a week now (although, to be clear, that was not a personal attack). I think this editor should be blocked for incompetence, unclear communication, POV-pushing, or whatever you may find troublesome about them. Atlantis536 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)