Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Afghan.Records

Afghan.Records (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk page is full of warnings by different users, which they don't seem to have paid much attention too, as their edits really haven't changed. If you click here [1] and Ctrl + F "reverted", you'll see a lot of yellow on your screen.

They just recently made more disruption at Pashtuns. They made a edit [2] under the edit summary "Added some more crucial information about the origin if Khalaj" - except they forgot to mention the part where they removed sourced info about scholarship currently considering the Hephthalites to have been Turks. Another edit just right afterwards [3], where they added the info "This believe has been further supported by The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 2 which attests the Bactrian tribes to be ancestors of Pashtuns." And suspiciously with no page, so I did a quick Ctrl + F on that source (page 771), and it did not fully support what Afghan.Records added; "The Panjshir then provided a route to the Paropamisadae mountains and to Kabul. The district of this route was Fo-li-shi-sa-t'angna, i.e., *Parshistan. Its inhabitants were probably the Parsii and Parsietae tribesmen - possibly Pashtuns." No mention of Bactrians, and it only says "possibly". Didn't check the rest of the info added, nor the two other edits, they might pose the same issues. EDIT: Their response to this ANI report makes it hard to have WP:GF imo, the evidence is literally right here; "Previously forgot to add the page of one of the 4 sources. Now fixed, if you have any objections go to talk page. Also, accusing me of miss representing sources is a claim and shows one inability to read properly without being biased."

So in other words, they tried to push the same stuff about the Khalaj (minimizing Turkic connection, increasing Iranian/Bactrian connection) when they first started editing and edit warring at Khalji dynasty back in April 2023 [4] (down below), which led to their block [5]. See also [6]

And there was also these episodes;

1. Another citation wrongly used again [7]
2. On 24 June where they randomly commented on others background and tried to back up their own statement with badly cited non-WP:RS [8]
3. On 13 September at Ghurid dynasty [9] they added (cherry-picked) a bunch of non-expert and non-WP:RS citations to push an Afghan/Pashtun origin, completely ignoring the current scholarly consensus mentioned in the article.
4. On 29 November [10] and 10 December [11], they randomly removed sourced info at Ghilji, no edit summary either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

They're also edit warring by adding non-WP:RS [12] [13], completely ignoring WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:AGEMATTERS. It seems those rules only count when it's information that Afghan.Records doesn't agree with it [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

More source misrepresentation, relying on a WP:PRIMARY source again and which states no such thing [15]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

They're now trying to pov push the Bactrians as "Afghan" (unsourced and not even remotely backed by scholarship) [16]. This is blatant WP:TENDENTIOUS, can admin action please get taken? This user is obviously unable to edit neutrally, I fail to how see they're a networth to this site. Also, they randomly accused someone of nationalism and racism just for reverting them... [17] HistoryofIran (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

And now they're edit warring (again) [18] and ironically accusing me of pov pushing [19]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA EC gaming?

User:FoodforLLMs, created on 12 Oct, gnomed 500 edits followed by a launch on 13 Dec into more serious editing on pages on such as the Axis of Resistance and others related to Hamas & Israel (interspersed with ongoing minor editing elsewhere). Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Although I did take it upon myself to fix a lot of articles missing short description in the transport space, you can take a look at my contributions and see that I had a lot of other contributions of varying length and complexity.

You can also take a look at my latest contributions and see many different subjects, including ones that do not relate to history, current events or the Israeli-Arab conflict FoodforLLMs (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty clear WP:PGAMEing. I've revoked their extended-confirmed permission, which they may re-request at WP:PERM/EC after making 500 non-trivial edits. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

If adding a short description is considered a worthless change in the eyes of the administration, then who is going to add descriptions to all these articles?

In my mind it both helps the UX by helping users search, it's a non trivial change because it requires adding 5-6 words which need some thinking, and it aligns with WP:NNH.

However, I accept your decision and I will re-request EC in the future FoodforLLMs (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned this at the appeal thread on AN, but I should say it here as well. It's chickenshit for us to say that editing certain articles is restricted to users who have 30 days of editing and 500 edits... then when they do that (at a significant investment of time and effort) we say "Nuh uh uh that doesn't count" and become upset and offended and throw a hissy fit and accuse them of some vague malfeasance. They did what we told them to do — have an account for 30 days and make 500 edits! We can't get mad at them for failing to realize that this was a lie and there was a secret additional requirement. If we told them to do something stupid, that is our fault, and we should stop telling them that, and we should instead make a rule that says you have to apply for XC and then an administrator grants it. jp×g🗯️ 09:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with JPxG here. It would be one thing if FoodforLLMs was adding and then deleting short descriptions and then reverting and re-reverting those edits until reaching 500 edits. But it seems like FoodforLLMs added genuine short descriptions, which we presumably want added to our articles. If we want short descriptions included in our articles, then adding them is not gaming the system. If we want the 500 article threshold to exclude additions of short descriptions then we should amend the requirements to say so. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, it's almost as if this were one of a significant number of very obvious and inevitable knock-on effects of the very broad and far-reaching policy language that ArbCom created out of whole cloth in the 'non-ECEs are not welcome on CTOP talk pages" decision, where said complications and consequences of such a massive change to our standards for participation in the project should have been considered and vetted by the community at large (over as long a period of time as it took to get the standard right), as opposed to by just twelve editors making an ad-hoc decision by themselves under a much shorter time constraint. Which in turn almost makes one think that the Committee went far, far beyond their traditional remit of reviewing particularly difficult cases or applying additional restraints for discrete topic areas, and straight into the business of declaring policy by fiat for the entire project. Which almost makes one think that the community at large is well overdue to mobilize to put some much more concretely defined guard rails in place to contain the Committee's ever-sprawling, increasingly limitless perception of its own purview, in order to prevent these kinds of oversteps.

And look, I'm sorry for the passive aggressive tone there--I know it's not typically the most helpful method to express concern on an issue like this. And I do appreciate that these steps (ill-advised and beyond the traditional remit of the Committee as I believe them to be) were taken in good faith. But I remain genuinely mystified as to how the current version of that body thought that this kind of all-encompassing decision (which can only be accurately described as WP:Policy creation from the top, in contravention of this project's most basic rules and oldest cultural values with regard to how consensus is formed) was within their remit, and why the community has not moved to walk back this decision and remind ArbCom of its place within our institutional order.

Is it that it's coming at a time of particular exhaustion, disengagement, and even nihilism about our systems by large swaths of our veteran editor base? Is it that this is actually a change which folds neatly into beliefs about restricting editing to registered users, and a minority (but still significant chunk) of editors actually like the sound of these changes enough that they are willing to turn a blind eye to ArbCom flexing new muscles, by expanding its scope arguably more than it has in any previous case? Or is it that we already let the situation get so far out of control that no one knows quite how to bring ArbCom to heel as a procedural matter? Or am I simply somewhere near the extremes when it comes to concerns generated by this decision?

Honestly, I'm really open to perspectives on this one, because I've been checked out for a few months and when I learned about this decision, I just felt it was wrong on so many levels--pertaining both to how the decision was made and the obvious implications (if not longterm infeasability) of the decision itself, and I am really surprised by the lack of agitation against it. If I'm more on the peripheries of this one than I'd expect to be, I'd like to know. And if I'm not, I'd like to talk with anyone who's interested about how we re-conceptualize our institutional order, to put some brakes on ArbCom's currently unfettered growth in authority. Because this feels as much like a watershed moment for that question as any since I joined the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard agree. Actually, I think this is how I got most of my first 500 edits. Originally, I was doing edits that took ages (for example, translating articles) and quickly realized that this clearly wasn't what wikipedia actually "wanted" of me, since I could not possibly make 10 or 20 of those kinds of edits a day. If we don't want minor edits like short descriptions being counted towards extended confirmed, we should significantly reduce the number of edits required. And we certainly shouldn't be removing ec permissions from people who see the game for what it is and play it by its rules. -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. Things like this are ripe for abuse. JM (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in a bit late here to point out that ARBECR is a poor example of the Committee creating policy by fiat. In fact the extended-confirmed userright and protection level evolved over quite a long time, starting from an administrative page-level sanction applied to a single article because of rampant sockpuppetry; that was in 2012. In 2015 a community discussion led to the 30/500 restriction being applied to topics related to Gamergate, and later that year Arbcom adopted the same restriction for ARBPIA after a lengthy case with many participants, because of the extremely toxic editing environment in that topic. EC wasn't coded into the software until a year after that, and only after more lengthy community discussions. The only thing Arbcom really did by creating ARBECR is adopt a sanction already in widespread use in the community as an available arbitration remedy, and that's well within their authority. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Meaning no disrespect Ivan, I nevertheless think that you're missing the forest for the trees here and failing to recognize the particular reasons why this particular ArbCom action was so bold and so far beyond any other superficially similar creation of general sanctions. Yes, EC is an old tool, and yes it has received the benefit of community vetting. For use with regard to mainspace edits in discrete topic areas, not the banning of all new users from every CTOP article talk page. That's tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of high traffic articles which are now reserved as the exclusive purview of the veteran editor, not just with regard to editing said articles, but indeed discussing and providing feedback on their content.

That's rather a sledgehammer approach in my book, but putting aside the advisability of the change, the more important point is that is a use of EC that community never approved (nor even broadly contemplated when institutionalizing EC as a technical feature, as far as I have ever seen. It is not just orders of magnitude above any other action the Committee has ever taken in terms of users impacted, it is categorically different in respect to how it has restricted access to and participation in our consensus process for some of the most heavily engaged with articles on the project. The implications are frankly staggering with regard to onboarding and retention of new editors (at a time when we should be seeking to ease the barrier of entry, not make the potential longterm editor inclined to see the project as inhospitable), not to mention the potential to jam up our process pages (I've seen the phrase "EC gaming" more in the past two months than all the previous years you reference above that EC has existed as a concept) or exacerbate many areas already prone to being our worst echo chambers.

Might the community have endorsed the changes ArbCom imposed upon the entire project here, had they been WP:PROPOSED at say the Village Pump? Personally, I strongly doubt it, but at the same time, it's not impossible. However, all of that is irrelevant to the ultimate concern I am trying to voice here: this was not ArbCom's choice to make, in my opinion. Or if it was, it's all the more cause to take a beat and consider how we counterbalance a body of a dozen editors with the apparent ability to pass what can only realistically be called a major policy on it's own, and the willingness to do so without first consulting the community. The changes here were profound, and the implications (both the intended ones and the inevitable knock-on effects and complications) should have been vetted by the community at a considered pace. ArbCom was designed to address intractable disputes through discrete cases, not set project-wide guidelines for engagement. I stand by the assessment that this is a problem that can only grow from here if we don't find a way to better define the Committee's role and the outer edges of its remit. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

None taken, I appreciate the discussion. I do think you've misinterpreted the evolution of ARBECR, though. When what later became ARBECR was first applied to ARBPIA (as a sanction under WP:ARBPIA3) part of the purpose in fact was editor retention. The argument then was that the topic had become so toxic that it was a barrier to entry in and of itself: well-meaning new users were going there to edit in good faith and faced so much abuse that they never edited again, or ended up blocked because they had no previous experience with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes and civility culture. Keeping new users from going straight there and instead expecting them to gain some experience editing less contentious topics was seen as a good thing. It was expected that by doing so, more editors would decide to stick around. Of course the primary purpose was countering rampant sockpuppetry, and besides I have no idea how we would go about measuring retention with and without the restriction, and I'm sure it is true that some potential editors decided not to bother, unfortunately.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, ARBECR is not a general remedy for all CTOPS subjects, but only for those specific topics where Arbcom has specifically approved its use on a case-by-case basis. Arbcom also clarified quite recently that non-EC users are permitted to participate on CTOPS talk pages by making edit requests. But I do fully agree with you that the accusations of "EC gaming" are getting out of hand: it was never the intent of the restriction for anyone to police new users' contributions to dictate what's acceptable and what isn't. It's a simple threshold on purpose and was always intended to be granted automatically and permanently, just like autoconfirmation. Nobody's EC permission should be revoked ever, unless it's because they're being blocked for sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's also noteworthy that, out of the two other topics for which ARBECR-style remedies are enforced, one of them, Armenia-Azerbaijan, was actually authorized by unanimous approval of editors in that area and at ANI (WP:GS/AA), not ARBCOM. In my experience working with that sanction authorization, the existing community of active editors is generally quite supportive of the 500/30 restriction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No disrespect intended towards anyone, but editors who don't edit these topics just don't understand. Spend six months trying to improve a high profile article in an ECR CTOP and you'll get it. I think that's why most regulars support ECR while non-regulars are more skeptical of it. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this the second time in a week that someone (a different user) edits got discounted as "trivial", got accused of gaming ECR and brought to ANI, only to have others reviewing the edits and deemed them to be not trivial? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Was it the same user bringing it to ANI? JM (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior

Over the past few months, I've observed a concerning pattern of behavior by Horse Eye's Back ("HEB", formerly Horse Eye Jack) that is characterized by vicious battlegrounding through unnecessarily personalized and deliberately aggressive comments. These issues have been observed and called to HEB's attention at least as far back as 2020, and they have not stopped.

I'd like to ask the community to issue a formal admonishment or other action, as you all deem appropriate.

Here's the history:

• In May 2020, Atsme said that "Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go. I think an admin warning would go a long way in helping to get this editor back on track." In June 2020, HEB was blocked by Floquenbeam for "repeated feuding" with a now-blocked editor, with behavior that included "following each other to articles to revert the other, and near constant bickering and templating and insults and harassment."
• In 2021, HEB was told by El_C at ANI that "Horse Eye's Back, you need to take a step back, maybe two. [...] It is combative. It is adversarial. It turns the discussion into a battleground, so you need to start reigning it in better. There's no other way."

In 2023 and 2024, Horse Eye's Back has continued practicing battleground behavior. In recent months, they have done the following:

• After tagging a swath of articles written by TCN7JM, HEB told them that "I clearly said we had a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. You are now complaining about those low quality articles from unskilled writers and researchers being tagged." (i.e. HEB is calling TCN7JM unskilled; August 2023)
• Told James500 that their comment was a "Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you." (September 2023)
• Called Rschen7754 "a leader of the extremist wing" of WP:ROADS editors. (October 2023)
• Told BeanieFan11 that they "appreciate how proudly ignorant you are of that though". (December 2023)
• Went after Simon Harley for a lightly critical blog post about Wikipedia, and then accused Simon of holding a conflict of interest because of edits made about their secondary school 15+ years ago. (Yesterday)

Last October, HEB told LilianaUwU and Drmies that they would take their feedback about personal attacks "to heart". But I believe that the above evidence, plus a number of fruitless recent attempts to bring concerns to HEB's attention, demonstrate that they will not alter their behavior without formal action. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Seconded (not independent, as I participated in the discussion on listed buildings noted above, and we've been on opposite sides in a number of AfDs). The critique of Simon Harley is startlingly inappropriate. I'd add that "I appreciate the personal feedback and will take it to heart, do you have any comment on my argument?" reads as aggressive to me, rather than a promise to behave more collegiately in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO it reads as frustrated but trying to do my best to stay on track content wise. I can definitely see how it would read as aggressive though. I would note that in the same way my worst edits have been cherrypicked you could also cherry pick collegiality, for example from this very discussion before it blew up "Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily Agee with them here..."[20] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• That is not a now-blocked editor, thats a LTA who was blocked years before I ever interacted with them. I did not attack Harley for a blog post, I pointed out they had gotten our policy/guideline wrong and that the restriction they thought existed actually didn't... We are in fact allowed to use sources which are publicly accessible but not online. I would note that The ed17 has omitted the key context here... They end at Harley, but they only brought this to ANI after this happened [21][22]. I find it baffling that the most important context was omitted from the report. Also just a note I currently have a LTA stalker undoing my contribs en-masse so if my comment disappears its almost certainly them and not a participant in this thread good hand-bad handing, I apologize in advance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, screw the LTAs that decide to revert people for no reason. That's a fair complaint, and may be worth a separate discussion. On the subject of this discussion, though, while there are tons of articles that leave a lot to be desired, I feel like you've been going way too far in the direction that all articles better be fixed right now, which includes the battleground behavior you've exhibited. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mean I gave them a reason... I kept opening SPI... Its a poor excuse but I wasn't in a good head space yesterday on account of the LTA. It must have been more than 100 reverts in 24 hours, maybe much more than that (most were repeats and dealt with by other editors who I am forever grateful to). If I may thats never been my editing philosophy, I believe in tagging *right now* but fixing over years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thirded. (Like user Espresso Addict, I am not independent of the situation; I have not participated in the linked discussions, but have interacted with Horse Eye's Back in other talk pages). I have also seen HEB's unnecessarily personalized and aggressive behavior toward editors. Late 2022 they received a warning at this noticeboard for aggressive and inaccurate accusations of COI against an appropriately disclosed paid Wikipedian-in-residence. Over the past month or so, HEB has turned attention to similarly disruptive cross-posting that has involved attempts (1) (2) to make public claims about another the personal information of another user (myself), including expressing belief that I should have "zero expectation of privacy" (this fits the pattern of making disagreements personal, about a user's identity, rather than about the substance of edits or content on Wikipedia); and more inaccurate accusations of COI. Of the inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation, User:DJ Cane said that HEB was "operating on a very liberal reading of WP:COI" and that HEB's "zeal in confronting opinions opposing your own in this discussion is both non-constructive and alarming, and I agree with the discussion provided by @P-Makoto that your cross-discussion comments targeting specific editors is concerning and possibly worth an outside review on its own". Based on this widespread pattern of aggressive, battlegrounding behavior, I support the proposal to issue formal action. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation"? I don't think it was aggressive and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. Yes they disclosed (but only on their user page, not on affected talk pages and not whenever they discussed the topic)... But they're also the author of 75% of the article on their employer... See [23]. Disclosure doesn't free you from the other restrictions and expectations... For example "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" and "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The "inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation" I linked to has nothing to do with the Harold B. Lee Library page or Rachel Helps (BYU). I linked to an AfD discussion about a different page where you were accosting Heidi Pusey BYU.

In any case, merely to clarify the particular matter you refer to: Rachel Helps (BYU) does in fact openly disclose that on her user page: I wasn't going to edit the page, but a previous copyvio put the page out of commission. I completely rewrote it so a page would exist. My edit history is available for anyone to examine. Other editors looked over the page. Since copyright violation is illegal and should be promptly replaced with non-copyvio content, this—while not ideal—is, I would posit, understandable (as a rare occurrence to not be recommitted), especially since Rachel Helps (BYU) is completely up front about it on her user page, has not repeated that, has made the disclosure on her user page, and has made sure other editors reviewed the contributions.

An occasional, rare questionable moment is understandable amid a long history of responsible editing; Rachel Helps (BYU) has a long history of responsible editing. Frequent, consistent misbehavior is much less understandable, especially when set against the backdrop of a pattern of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding; unfortunately, you have a long history of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a long history of responsible editing, even my greatest detractor wouldn't argue that more than 1% of my edits are misbehavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

People aren’t here to call for you to be subject to an outright ban as you do make plenty of good contributions to the project. We’re here because you have a sustained history of aggression, targeting, and tendency to go off topic in discussions when another editor disagrees with you. Additionally your inaccurate interpretation of COI appears to lead to many of these interactions. DJ Cane (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a single person has called for me to be subject to an outright ban unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this notice to my attention @P-Makoto. To expand on what’s quoted of me there, it is clear to me that HEB has decided that any affiliation at all with the subject matter of an article to constitute a COI violation and they defend their opinion on that and any other subject I’ve seen in an aggressive, non good faith manner. DJ Cane (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I do not wish to devote too much energy to this. I was not the kindest person in the world during these discussions and have since moved on to building the new AARoads Wiki and generally doing other stuff with my life. However I was pinged in the initial post, and the reason I was not kind in these discussions is because I feel so strongly about this, so I'll say this much: this is long overdue. The listed jab at me was especially out-of-pocket because my initial diatribe in that RFC did not mention or even name HEB, but not long after it was posted, he found it within himself to go back and tag a buttload of articles I had written and contributed to a decade ago. Just deeply petty and mean to the point that it could not be construed as anything other than a personal attack. It also feels worth mentioning that relentless sealioning is another card in HEB's deck, so if he starts ignoring the crux of your argument to keep asking for more proof/diffs, just know it's a pattern. I decline to answer any questions or comment further on this matter. Good luck. TCN7JM 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats sealioning? Good grief... I would say more but what's the point if you're not participating further. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just so this doesn't get overlooked, I want to point out that the comment from TCN7JM that HEB is replying to was You know this, otherwise there'd be no reason your side has been so heavily pushing for it. C'mon buddy, you're smarter than this. That is a blatant provocation; it's WP:ASPERSIONs against an entire group of editors, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and incivility rolled into one. And HEB's response was to ignore the uncivil second part and just ask for evidence for the aspersion in the first part. That is, by any measure, restrained. Wikipedia is not a casual discussion forum; editors who make accusations against others are in fact required to back them up. If discussion weren't already swamped with so many different discussions, I would say that this is the sort of thing that would call for a WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Diffs without context are my least favorite aspect of ANI. This one is particularly thin in terms of proving any "pattern". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have been personally warned by more than one user from interacting with HEB due to what they characterized as trollish behavior. I don't think any of them have commented here yet. My experience with HEB does not deviate far from their descriptions. Qiushufang (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Considering HEB is one of the reasons roads editors forked, you were better off not interacting with them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have much to say except that in the discussion on Talk:Simon Harley I was concerned by the pattern I was seeing. Hostile posts followed by demands for details and clarification and at every point adding new issues is a pattern I've seen in other users before. It is a very negative one as it makes the conversation exhausting for all concerned. If HEB consistently demonstrates this pattern (and I have not examined all the diffs other people have provided, so I don't exactly know how valid their concerns are) then the community should have very little patience for it. The Land (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see a great deal here except content disputes. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the difs above extreme enough to warrant ANI involvement. Most users who edit a lot will have edits which display their frustration, and the above difs show nothing more than that. What are we here for? What policies is HEB supposed to have violated? In many cases, established editors are (probably unfairly) given much more leeway than newer users, I don't see that happening here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Huh? Behaviour during content disputes is very much what 'warrants ANI involvement'. For policies, try WP:NPA for a start. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but my point is that I don't see anything in the behaviour outlined above that would warrant an ANI case.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Then you don't understand ANI. Longterm serial aggression and personal attacks, despite numerous warnings, a block, and promises to change, are very much what ANI is exactly for. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a massive degree of aggression there. I have seen cases showing lots more evidence of aggression laughed out of here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• (I wrote this last night, but got tired and went to bed before I could proofread and post) I have to say, although I'm biased, this user seems to get into ridiculously long arguments over ridiculous, petty and irrelevant things with just about everyone a LOT. Not to discount any work that Horse Eye's has done, but the majority of his contributions seem to fall under either (i) maintenance tagging and removal of content from articles, (ii) getting into silly battleground arguments with users and (iii) arguing over the reliability of sources (and, now I could be wrong, but his reliability standards seem wildly off view from what is generally accepted, e.g., stating that there's only a few people in the world who can be cited for all articles on American football, a vast, vastly covered subject which has over a hundred million followers - something that result in the deletion of 99% of articles on the subject).
  

His talk history seems to be riddled with other editors pointing out problematic edits, rude behavior, etc. A few that immediately came to mind (I don't have the time to come up with an extensive list):

From the ANI regarding myself from last January, User:Rlendog kept a list: User:Rlendog/Sandbox6

Several WT:NFL sections (see 43 mentions of his name at one NFL archive, even though he seems to have little interest in the sport (no edits there previously), he appears to have watchlisted it after the ANI about me to complicate and oppose actions there).

Especially unhelpful comments like here, where an attempt to defuse a conflict resulted in him calling me "ignorant" and making clearly unhelpful comments such as No. You're wrong and its as simple as that.

Absurdly long stalling of a DYK nomination, including what seems to be suggesting that being religious means one has a COI on religion and are worthy of receiving topic bans / ANI if they do not follow all COI procedures for all religious subjects and suggesting that users with tens of thousands of edits are SPAs for only editing religion-areas: Talk:Coriantumr (son of Omer). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The second half of that statement is key, I said that "You have potential..." and you have largely lived up to that potential in the time since (your editing certainly has improved, you're much less tunnel vision these days) even if I wish you would spend more time in non-NFL topic areas (I love your overwhelming passion for the topic area, but your passion for the topic area is also problematic). The idea that I am only on WikiProject NFL to mess with you doesn't pass the smell test[24]. You are a gifted researcher and there are many areas of the project besides American Football which would benefit from your input. It is news that Rlendog is keeping a dossier on me (complete with calling me a "horses behind"[25]), note that they appear to be misrepresenting the content of a number of those diffs... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: I hadn't seen that HEB had called you a single-purpose account without a firm basis. Saying "note that BeanieFan11 is themselves a SPA" for the frankly ridiculous reason "it all looks like sports to me" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green is something I'd have added to the OP had I come across it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have had unpleasant interactions with HEB myself, and the tone of it fits the pattern of what other editors describe above. In this series of edits on a banned editor's user page, HEB seemed to me to have a battleground-y rigidity about wanting to put a "badge of shame" there: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Now I'll say that I know full well that editors disagree on the substance of when to tag or not, but this is a matter of the attitude that HEB brought into that disagreement. One can see a wall of text of editors disagreeing here: [30]. No need to read all of it, but just start at the top and see the attitude adopted by HEB in replying to various editors, not just to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am gonna say here that while I haven't read the OPs diffs, if they're like these ones I really don't think this deserves to be at ANI. Nothing here seems off even attitude-wise and I read the last diff as the majority of editors agreeing with HEB about the underlying dispute. Loki (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I do sometimes bring a bad attitude to talk pages (we all do sometimes), but that talk page doesn't seem to be among them... I certainly give you attitude in the linked edit summaries (not more than is acceptable), but not on the talk page... That actually looks better than I remember it being. None of those twenty comments are problematic unless I'm missing something (and if I am please link the diff). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a back-and-forth with anyone here, but editors/admins can decide for themselves what they think of the interaction with Tamzin at the very start of that long discussion. I'm not saying that's the only example, just an easy one for other editors and for admins to look at. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The innuendo isn't helping, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the edits there and the same *can not* be said about many of the edits that others have shared... They really are my darkest moments (have I made 50 bad edits? Almost certainly, but its out of 50k)... What you shared just isn't, I would actually present that series of interactions as evidence that I'm a decent editor (I don't seem to disrespect anyone, I don't bludgeon, I don't make sarcastic comments, I don't make jokes, I don't do anything objectionable as far as I can see). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon on Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer). He told my student that she couldn't vote in an AfD about a Book of Mormon topic she wrote a page on because we work at the BYU Library (and according to his logic, have a COI on all topics related to the LDS Church). In the same AfD, he wrote that the Book of Mormon "describes a religious fantasy world" and that there are "no 'possibly historical elements' in Mormon scripture". Not only were these comments irrelevant to the AfD, but they were also dismissive of my religious beliefs. HEB refuses to escalate to actually nominating pages he tags with notability cleanup banners for deletion, claiming to want to continue discussion. However, discussion with HEB is very frustrating because he continues to try to enforce his own idiosyncratic interpretation of COI and independent sources. Maybe there is an important discussion to be had about what really can be an independent source about religious topics, but I would much prefer that it happen with people who are not going to make me feel like crap. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, HEB’s insistence that the Book of Mormon should be treated as a work of fiction is not in line with established Wikipedia guidelines (see: WP:MVF and others) but when pointed out HEB aggressively doubles down on their interpretation. DJ Cane (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think anything being said there is excessively aggressive, I do agree that this series of diffs indicates that HEB's interpretation of COI is way too expansive. The idea that working at BYU (or heck, directly for the LDS church) means you can't vote in an AfD about Mormon scripture is IMO nuts. That would mean that rabbis have a COI about Moses. Loki (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @LokiTheLiar: Its not working at BYU, its being a paid editor... "you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;" if they're paid to edit pages on Mormon scripture then they can't act as a reviewer for Mormon scripture at AfD. The Rabbi is fine, so is the BYU student or professor who isn't a paid editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    As I noted in this discussion, paid editors by the BYU Library editing subjects related to the LDS faith (including relevant discussions) is not a WP:COI violation per WP:COIE but if they were to edit articles about BYU or its professors that would be. This is a Wikipedian in Residence program and is even listed as such by Wikimedia. Nobody would bat an eye at paid editors from a state university contributing to pages about state government or adjacent topics. This, of course, is not the topic of this conversation but represents an example of how HEB has adopted a standard of their own to hold editors to that lies outside the standards agreed upon by the community. DJ Cane (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    By "articles about BYU or its professors" do you mean articles like Harold B. Lee Library, Hugh Nibley, Leonard J. Arrington, Merrill Bradshaw, Brigham Young University Museum of Art, BYU Family History Library, Ronald W. Walker, Brigham Young University Student Service Association, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, but a quick review of each of those shows only minor edits (spelling, ref fixes, etc.) by a BYU paid account since about 2021 with the exception of on Hugh Nibley who, while he was a BYU professor was also a major figure in LDS apologetics which may or may not constitute COI depending on a deeper review of the content of those edits using systems we have built as a community to counter problems. In either case, COI issues with those articles doesn’t justify targeting or stirring up trouble in other places.

    Note: I acknowledge a more thorough review could show more but I was looking for accounts with BYU in the name, which appears to be the standard these editors are using as part of how they identify themselves. DJ Cane (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    This isn't entirely on-topic but you need to go back further, for example Rachel Help's first editor at Harold B. Lee Library is in 2016 (diff unavailable do the copyright strike) and there are substantial edits along with the minor edits... So many substantial edits in fact that she is the author of 75.2% of the page. In 2017 she re-wrote the page [31] with a significant new emphasis on awards and positive rankings. You will also note that there isn't a disclosure on most of those talk pages which is required, we have a system and these editors aren't following it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Whataboutism based on issues 6+ years ago that aren’t ongoing isn’t a very effective argument. DJ Cane (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Appears to be ongoing, this edit from the 5th is the sort of edit that really needs to be proposed on the talk page not done directly [32]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    Another prime example of what is not a COI in this situation. DJ Cane (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    How so? It appears to be both a paid edit (all of which incur a financial conflict of interest per WP:PE) and to have additional conflicts based on organizational affiliation (in case you didn't catch it some of the removed text concerned the "Museum of Art at Brigham Young University"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    The edit summary should be sufficient for a reasonable observer - the portion removed (a collection at BYU) was not relevant to the article (which covers art with Mormon themes and from Mormon artists). The collection could be appropriately added to Brigham Young University Museum of Art but not by @Rachel Helps (BYU) because that would be a COI, or possibly elsewhere which may or may not be a COI. DJ Cane (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. One thing thats become clear from this conversation is that COI might be the most nebulous part of wikipedia, no two editors have provided the same standard or expectations for how COI should be perceived and adjudicated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The paid editing standards apply to all edits which have been paid for which for these accounts is all their edits. I think you're getting standard COI and PAID confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Voting in an AfD (or RFC or similar) is not what that line refers to. It's being a reviewer. Also that line is from WP:COI not WP:PAID, so it only applies if the account has a COI, which the person you were accusing still very much did not. Loki (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:PE says "Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals." We can have a discussion about whether or not AfD is included in "or similar" but AfD is clearly similar to AfC so if its not included some clarification is needed. WP:PAID says "Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published." The paid BYU editors edit the articles directly and create the articles directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who's sometimes disagreed with Horse and sometimes agreed with him, I think that nonetheless the bedside manner can be a bit lacking. Also, this seems rather bizarre — wtf is that? Homeslice hasn't edited the page in 15 years and has very little current authorship, what could this possibly have had to do with the dispute at hand? jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• This thread cited above by Rachel Helps is absolutely bananas, both in terms of HEB's ridiculous interpretation of COI, and his blatant attempts to cow others into submission with threats of topic bans. The gravedancing on Roxie the Dog's user page cited by Tryptofish (and HEB's refusal to either walk away or admit his edits were not helpful) is also troubling. This pattern of behavior seems to be widespread and unlikely to stop, given their history. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the fact that this "pattern of behavior seems to be widespread and unlikely to stop" is the nub of what ANI ought to evaluate here. I recognize that HEB also has a long track record of making good contributions, so this gets into a "net positive" versus "net negative" kind of balance. How that balances out, I'm not yet sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN on LDS and BYU topics, broadly construed, would possibly be a good starting point. It would at the very least stop one area of targeted harassment and put HEB on notice that more sanctions may follow if the behavior does not improve. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  That might not be the best idea, LDS topics are already heavily-skewed in *favour* of the topic, largely due to the fact that the majority of editors who work on it are mormons. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having HEB’s aggression/targeting mixed in will not resolve or add any value to that issue. DJ Cane (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that HEB is being particularly aggressive, and I very much am not convinced that their overly expansive interpretation of COI is worse than POV-pushing. Loki (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Softlavender's proposal that a TBAN on LDS and BYU topics, broadly construed, would possibly be a good starting point. I have seen HEB's behavior become highly disruptive in that part of Wikipedia, since 2022 and up to the present.

  Respectfully, Loki, I disagree with your assessment of HEB's behavior. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is not about these interactions and confrontations in isolation, but how they have accumulated into a disruptive pattern. What most alarms me is how even after receiving a warning for harassing Rachel Helps (BYU), HEB has continued to be sufficiently preoccupied with WP:HOUNDING her that over a year later HEB now is attempting to threaten her students with topic bans. If HEB's behavior were more isolated or didn't have a history behind it, then I could understand not raising it to ANI. However, the extent of it across time, topics, and people lead me to agree with at a minimum Softlavender's proposal.

  Finally, I would say that whether or not HEB's overly expansive interpretation of COI is worse than POV-pushing seems like a potential inadvertent distraction, inasmuch as it may lead us to be dwelling on other people's behavior (POV-pushing) when that can be considered independently of HEB's behavior, and the latter's what this ANI thread is about. If there are concerns about POV-pushing from editors who aren't HEB, then they and their POV-pushing can be taken up in a separate thread or separate threads. For this thread, my comment are about HEB's behavior, and I include the overly expansive interpretation of COI. For what it's worth, if this is referring to Rachel Helps (BYU), my experience has been that she and her students make good-faith efforts to be careful about POV and have been, in the handful of times I have seen missteps, receptive to good-faith feedback on their edits. I've found them much easier and more productive to work alongside than HEB, who so quickly escalates to deploying their overly expansive interpretation of COI to try to disregard and eliminate editors from topics and pages. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I've proposed a formal admonishment below but left it generalized because it's difficult to pinpoint the one true concern. HEB's interpretation of COI is at the root of several—but definitely not all—of the problematic behaviors/concerns identified above, which is broader than LDS/BYU. Still, I'm not sure thatthere would be appetite for enforceable editing restrictions that instruct HEB to bring any COI concerns to the COI noticeboard in lieu of a talk page in any namespace. Regardless, I would personally encourage HEB at least ask general questions about their interpretation of COI at COIN. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As a voluntary restriction I could get behind that... The only problem I see is thats its more of a privilege than a restriction and some apparently want to see me punished... Normally you're supposed to go talk page first, "If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline." but I wouldn't mind being able to start at the noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the argument here is that we should just not enforce our own policies as long as someone has a particular POV in a topic area -- I do not think this is a good idea. jp×g🗯️ 09:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Like boynamedsue above, I'm struggling to see anything ANI-worthy here. I'm seeing a lot of misrepresented diffs here (the diffs in the OP are not vicious battlegrounding, the COI diffs are not harassment or "going after" anyone), I'm seeing a lot of editors who have previously had content or policy disputes with HEB piling on (in some cases after being pinged here). I would oppose any sanctions on these diffs. Everyone makes snippy remarks now and again, the quality and quantity of HEB's remarks don't seem particularly bad, and while conduct concerns like COI would be better brought to COIN than raised with the COI editors (who will never agree they have a COI), I think this ANI pile-on is worse than the alleged incivility. And FWIW I believe if you put it on your resume you have a COI for it, whether it's education or employment. Levivich (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, in terms of COI, people with a personal connection to a topic, especially potential economic benefit from its positive reputation, have a COI. That may or may not be the mainstream interpretatiob of COI (I almost never edit in fields where this might be relevant) but it surely isn't an ANI matter to be reasonably wrong here?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation of COI. I do think HEB's interpretation goes beyond that in the cases above, although I also feel there's more nuance to what is COI when it comes to editors from religious schools and BYU in particular. The bludgeoning and targeting are problematic. I think that this might be exacerbated by the frustration inherent in 1v1 and 1vmany arguments where he knows there is PAG/MOS violation to some degree from the "other" side, and they're just not getting it so he tries to approach the problem from different angles or catch them out in some other way. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, more nuance in BYU's case: All seem to agree that the school owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is — and should be — different from other universities ... the school 'stands unquestionably committed to its unique academic mission and to the church that sponsors it.' ... 'being a university second to none in its role primarily as an undergraduate teaching institution that is unequivocally true to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the process' [33] Levivich (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• After reading all the various diffs, the only problematic thing I'm seeing is that HEB has a very expansive idea of what a COI is. I don't think that HEB is being particularly uncivil or aggressive in any of the linked diffs. (Given this, I would also like to object to ScottishFinnishRadish's closing of the COI section above, because I feel that section and not this one has the more meaningful part of this complaint.) Loki (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't really see much aggression or incivility; what I do see is that Horse Eye's Back is inexplicably ultra-confident in what they are saying, even when that is absolutely ridiculous to everyone else. This discussion cited above is just bewildering, where they ardently and confidently misunderstand, inter alia, what being a reliable source is, what subject-matter experts are, what the meaning of "niche" is, and probably more still, and yet they still carry on in possibly the most self-confident manner imaginable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: Perhaps "aggressive" is the wrong word to use, and if so I'd be happy to use a different descriptor if you or others have one. "Sealioning" was one potential descriptor I used below. The intent in my use of "aggressive" was to describe that sort of passive-aggressive(?) relentless attack and defense without self-reflection. As I said below, "It's not that HEB is consistently uncivil, but that they frequently exhibit aggressive battlegrounding behavior with individuals who either happen to disagree with them or HEB thinks have violated a Wikipedia policy/guideline." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Fourthed (or whatever number we're one now). Battleground behaviour is evident as presented by Ed and others. I myself have had a few negative interactions with the editor in question where similar behaviour was exhibited. JM (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a very self explanatory piece. Baiting and harassment in its finest. [34] — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not harassment, by any stretch. And I hardly call it baiting. Expressing astonishment that someone reviewed something so quickly is not either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is his usual method of trying to provoke an argument with editors of WP:ROADS. Even the language shows high levels of passive aggressiveness. Even the angry "Don't you dare" shows it. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 20:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

COI clarification

Not a matter for ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the user talk page @Parsecboy: said "On what planet does having attended a school constitute a WP:COI? Let me be clear: it doesn't."[35] with @The Land: saying "Hello Horse Eye's Back. Like Parsecboy, I can't imagine circumstances where regular, non-controversial editing pages on a school one attended would be a COI requiring declaration."[36] and I just wanted to check whether that was true... Thats not how I've seen COI applied in practice and it certainly clashed directly with what WP:COI says but if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) My intuition just from reading WP:COI is that making edits about a school that you are attending is probably a COI, but not a school you attended. I would guess that most edits about otherwise obscure high schools are from people who attended those high schools. Loki (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) The context here includes both edits while attending and edits after attending. I agree with you vis-a-vis obscure high schools but I'm not sure that its ok just because a lot of people do/have done it. For me the biggest aspect is self promotion... Lionizing anything which is on your resume is effectively self promotion, but the seriousness of education COI goes in descending order from post-doc lab to pre-school. IMO high school is about the cutoff for where I'm worried about it. We all know the first thing recruiters do when they see a school on a resume is look it up on google... Which takes them straight to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC) HEB, this ANI has been opened about your behavior, and I'm concerned you created this section to distract/deflect from that. If you want a clarification about our COI policies, WP:COIN is available. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yes, my behavior... Hence "if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here." What appears to be deflection is pinging in a whole series of editors I've had issues with over the years to dogpile on me while omitting the actual context of the complaint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There is absolutely no blanket COI between an individual who attends a school and an article on that school. The argument that it does belies a complete misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. If the editor works for the school in any capacity, then yes, there's a COI. If Horse Eye's Back's interpretation is correct, you can go through the edit history of probably every article on a school and block all of the editors for violating this conception of what constitutes a COI. You could count on one hand the number of editors who have contributed to schools they didn't attend. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There absolutely is a blanket COI, the only question is whether it’s a concern to wikipedia. I think it might actually be you who misunderstands what a COI is. I don't believe I ever called for blocks, I've only asked for disclosure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. Please explain what interests the average student have that conflicts with Wikipedia’s goals (beyond petty vandalism, which isn’t a COI issue). Are you arguing that the average student as a financial interest in how their school is portrayed online? Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOAPBOX points 1, 4, and 5. The only way for them not have a special interest is if school reputation plays no role in hiring or advancement in their field nor do they ever plan on working or seeking employment in such a field... If it’s on your resume you have a conflict of interest with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Still no explanation about how that applies to students of a school (and numbers 1 and 3 have nothing to do with a COI, and would apply equally to non-students as well). As for 4, the editors in question never worked for their schools, nor were they writing articles about themselves. Are you arguing that they benefit by making their school appear better than it was? If so, that’s so damn thin it’s transparent, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 1, 4, and 5 not 1, 3, and 4. #4 covers writing about yourself *and* "projects in which you have a strong personal involvement." Yes that is my argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Then your argument is a joke. The idea that anyone could personally benefit from making their high school seem better on Wikipedia is cosmically absurd. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC) What if you're currently in the college application process? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Lol no. Have you ever worked in an educational system? Heck, even applied to college? Nobody is researching highschools on Wikipedia to make decisions on who gets accepted. We’ve crossed over into parody, right? Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "unnecessarily personalized and deliberately aggressive comments" indeed... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) My comment was in no way aggressive, and the only personalization was questioning your experience in this area, which seems relevant, since you are making an argument that is ludicrous on its face. At what point are you going to stop digging in your heels on this obviously wrong position and admit you have grossly misinterpreted COI? Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I worked in college admissions for two years. We used wikipedia daily, its simply not possible to memorize thousands of highschools. I applied to college. Is there any other personal information you would like to know? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) And what did you use it for, praytell? Surely you are not seriously suggesting that, for two students who have identical GPAs, ACT/SAT scores, extra-curriculars, etc., you would break the tie by checking the Wikipedia article on their high school. If not, then the student has no particular interest in their school's iamge on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Not directly but we would assign the school an "academic reputation" score of 1-5 which for prep schools was pretty easy because there are actual rankings but for the random public schools yeah it pretty much was just googling the school and assigning an arbitrary score. We had less than 20 minutes to review their entire file including essays and letters of recommendation. I don't know what you're imagining but its not a terribly fair or scientific process. In my own professional life I have had a recruiter quote the wikipedia page for my college to me so I'm assuming he looked at it. Maybe that is what colors my perception of COI, I know how much it matters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:COI says that it's a policy that should be applied with common sense. To my mind, what school someone attended is only loosely an 'interest', let alone one that is likely to come into conflict with anything else. The idea that editing one's secondary school is effectively self-promotion on the grounds that some future employer might care about what the Wikipedia article about the school says. This would be quite an innovation for our COI policy. As I said, there might be some edge cases where the school or edits about it are particularly controversial. But that's not the case here and there's no justification for jumping on Simon Harley's talk page with threatening messages. The Land (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) When does it become a COI which matters then? When you're editing your thesis advisor's page? Also note that these edits are controversial because the articles (List of headmasters of St. Bees School and History of St. Bees School) don't actually appear notable... Making a page for a non-notable thing you have a COI with strikes me as a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:COI says that Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest [emphasis mine] and later How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. I do not think "I previously attended this school" is a conflict of interest which requires disclosing. If it is, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of substantive edits about schools across the entirety of wikipedia are in violation of it! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC) @Caeciliusinhorto-public: what about currently attends or works at the school? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Works at the school" I would consider the same as working at any other institution; WP:COI explicitly says that being an employee of an institution is (not just can be) a financial conflict of interest. Even if someone is editing an article about their employer off-the-clock and not as part of their job, I would think it should be disclosed, though such editing might still be completely unproblematic. "Currently attends" I think is okay and generally does not require a COI disclosure; I suspect that there might be less community consensus on that though. Fundamentally I just don't think that attending or having attended a school gives the average person any particular interest in presenting a school in a particular way that would conflict with their duties as a Wikipedian. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Is there a difference to you between a public school where education is freely provided and a private school at which the student has a strong financial relationship with the school? (or for that matter a public school which charges tuition) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I can't see how it makes a difference. I can't see how an editor who went to a fee-paying school should have a conflict of interest wrt that school any more than an editor who shops at Walmart has a conflict of interest wrt Walmart. If we consider that a disclosable COI, then Talk:Walmart is improbably light on required COI disclosures! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) They don't seem to be the same relationship... Surely a business owner has a COI with their employee in the way that a employee has with the business owner? Its not only the employee who has a COI. If the school pays you 45k a year you have a major COI with the school, so why would there be no major COI if you pay the school 45k a year? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) If the school pays you 45k a year you have a major COI with the school, so why would there be no major COI if you pay the school 45k a year? Why should these two situations be equivalent? If you are employed by someone, they have the power to punish you (up to and including firing you) if you do things which reflect negatively upon them, and to reward you with bonuses or promotions if you do things which help them make money (and, of course, if you do things that help them make money then they are more likely to remain solvent, and thus you are more likely to keep your job). If you regularly pay an organisation thousands of dollars, they have no such power over you. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) So you're saying that employers don't have a COI with their employees? Its only employees who have a COI with their employer? I don't think thats right, if I employ Rudy Giuliani as my lawyer I have a conflict of interest with Rudy Giuliani. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC) No, that's not at all what I said. I haven't got a strong opinion on whether a business owner prima facie has a COI wrt all of their employees (certainly business owners have a COI with respect to at least some of their employees, but would for instance Jeff Bezos have a COI with respect to any random person who happened to work as an Amazon delivery driver? I'm not convinced he would). Even if we accept arguendo that they do, the school you go to is not your employee, even if you are paying them directly through school fees rather than indirectly through your taxes. A fee-paying school is a business and their students are customers. I do not think that people in general have a COI with regards to businesses they patronise which requires disclosure, even if their financial commitment to that business runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that simply attending a school could give someone a COI. If we included that, why not include, I don't know... "anyone who lived in town X" or even "anyone who lives in country Y"? Are we going to ban every New Yorker from editing New York? Should every American citizen be considered to have a COI with regards to WP:AP2? Or (and this is the classic example to me), would we consider every citizen of Israel, and every citizen of Gaza and the West Bank, to have a COI with regards to WP:CT/A-I? And maybe every Jew and Muslim to boot? For that matter, what about religious beliefs in other contexts? Could anyone with a strong religious belief (or staunch atheism) be considered to have a COI not just with regards to their own faith, but everyone else's? Should we extend that to everything their faith has weighed in on - which, for some major faiths, could be almost everything? There are clearly some relationships that an observer notionally could conclude could incline someone to bias that don't rise to the level of a COI. While financial COIs are of course not the only ones that exist, I think that it's reasonable to say that something should rise to at least the level of a serious financial COI (ie. something that a reasonable observer would assume is as significant to the editor as large amount of money, just based on whatever detail is known about them.) People could be presumed to have that sort of COI with regards to their family members or the like; but I don't think you'd usually presume that level of COI with regard to your hometown, nation of origin, alma mater, or the like. Even religious belief - which might rise to that level - isn't usually considered sufficient for a COI. (Though that said, I personally don't think it would be amiss to treat people whose nationalistic, political, philosophical or religious beliefs rise to the level of "as important to them as life itself" as having a COI with regards to core articles about those things - but it would be a very difficult thing to practically enforce. And that is stuff that is way more weighty to most people than their alma mater.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yes all of those people have conflicts of interest, they just aren't significant enough to matter most of the time. Thats the nuance that I think most people miss about conflict of interest, we are all immeshed in a massive web of conflicts of interest. Each of us has nearly innumerable conflicts. I'm interested in where you would draw the line, where does education become a significant COI? Professors you had? Thesis advisor? Former lover/professor? When you donate to your alma matter? When your kids goes there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Admonishment proposal

About a dozen editors above have voiced concerns with HEB's behavior; two editors called it "sealioning", which to me looks to be an apt descriptor in the general internet sense. It's not that HEB is consistently uncivil, but that they frequently exhibit aggressive battlegrounding behavior with individuals who either happen to disagree with them or HEB thinks have violated a Wikipedia policy/guideline.

Unfortunately, HEB is not understanding those concerns, as he has chosen to dispute nearly every negative characterization brought up in the above discussion.

As such, I'd like to move for a formal admonishment. As part of that, HEB would be warned that if their battleground behavior continues, admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied.

Pinging the users who have commented above: Espresso Addict, Horse Eye's Back, LilianaUwU, P-Makoto, DJ Cane, TCN7JM (apologies for pinging per the end of your message, please don't feel like you need to comment again), Qiushufang, The Land, Boynamedsue, Johnbod, Softlavender, BeanieFan11, Tryptofish, LokiTheLiar, Parsecboy, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Aquillion, Rachel Helps (BYU), JPxG, Levivich. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support my own proposal. I'd be thrilled if this formal action curbs HEB's worst impulses and sets them on the path of being a better collegial editing partner. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like I say above, apart from the COI stuff I'm not seeing it. Loki (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support if it gets them to stop being needlessly antagonistic about literally anything and everything. Qiushufang (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Reading through Rachel Helps' talk page archives, this seems like pretty clear sealioning behavior to me. There are countless warnings of their behavior, yet also many people that have come to the users's defense - WP:UNBLOCKABLE comes to mind (although a formal admonishment seems the best option here). I would recommend HEB try to focus on other activities on the wiki besides posting COI notices/enforcement on user talk pages. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note that while I do not meet the definition given in the link both Ed and Parsecboy do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- like I said, the bedside manner could stand to be improved. (As a parenthetical note, I didn't get a ping from that comment above, even though I was pinged with the {{u}} template -- maybe it failed?) jp×g🗯️ 09:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  What's astounding is that the people who personally warned me (multiple) about HEB haven't even commented yet. The fact that multiple complete strangers who I had zero prior interactions with would individually send me warnings about another editor's behavior is insane. I have been editing for as long as HEB practically every other day for five years and have gotten into good deal of disputes, but this is on a whole other level. Qiushufang (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  If you want my blessing to link those warnings and ping them without anyone being able to call "canvassing" you have it, I have nothing to hide and we've certainly got a party going already. Would also like to know if you're going to open a SPI anytime soon with what I brought to your talk yesterday, if you're not let me know and I'l open the SPI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - as written - admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied - is too vague and doesn't offer any specificity. Admin discretion would allow an admin action to be just another warning, and what editing restrictions are you asking for? You stated there is a "concerning pattern of behavior" by HEB, "and they have not stopped", but this proposal falls short of actually stopping and/or curtailing that behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway: I didn't think there would be support for specific sanctions as we are talking about a broad pattern of behavior. The hope is that a final and formal warning shot would set HEB on a better path, while also giving admins broader leeway for tackling issues in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that having this ANI opened is punishment enough and should give HEB plenty to think about. No formal warning required. Tooncool64 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tooncool64: Were the six attempts I linked in the OP, plus the plethora of time HEB has disputed negative characterizations in this discussion, plus the multiple times HEB has been discussed on this noticeboard, not proof that informal curbs aren't enough? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see any behaviour that would warrant a sanction of any type. I think we are perhaps dealing with users who are over-estimating what is required in terms of politeness to suggest WP:NPA excludes any display of exasperation at all.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the diffs are not frequent, not aggressive, not battleground, and not sealioning. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the additional suggestion that further formal action be proposed and discussed. I agree with Isaidnoway that the proposal as written risks doing too little to dissuade HEB. HEB has been warned here at ANI previously (see Drmies's comment at the end of this thread that I linked in my "thirded" comment about HEB's persistent, disruptive, and targeted behavior against a user, including accusations based on inaccurate interpretations of COI, stating Horse Eye's Back, you need to back off. This is your clear warning: drop the stick.), and has chosen to persist. HEB's behavior has been long-term over the past couple years, widespread across topics, disruptive to editing, beyond mere expressions of exasperation, and unrelenting (if anything HEB has expanded the scope of behavior, e.g. see how targeting Wikipedian-in-residence Rachel Helps (BYU) in 2022 has turned into targeting students working for her in 2023–2024). Formal action should be taken. As far as my suggestion to propose further formal action (beyond the proposed admonishment), in the linked thread Awilley suggested a one-way interaction ban. Maybe some one-way interaction bans would both stop HEB's targeting of some users and provide a clear disincentive against further behavior like this. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with the additional note that I’d like to see one or more specific consequences outlined in this forum for if HEB continues the unwarranted aggression, targeting, etc.

DJ Cane (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Further comment: there’s a lot of people voting oppose who are right in saying that none of the concerns brought up violate any policy on their own, but at least in my opinion these editors are taking issues individually as if they are occurring in a vacuum. They are, of course, right if that was the case but it simply isn’t. There is a clear pattern of hostile behavior from HEB stemming several years and some of the sealioning reported by other users was later exhibited in this discussion (such as when HEB tried to justify themselves multiple times using years old edits). Furthermore, this crowd has started what appears to be an unjustified discussion claiming canvassing is present here simply because there are editors who take issue with HEB’s behavior. There is a lot to unpack from what has been said in this discussion, but none of the “side quests” should be used to distract from the issue at hand which has already been formally warned against at least once yet continues.

DJ Cane (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For me, that "further comment" exactly pinpoints what I see as the issue here. I hope that this proposal does not get lost in ANI indecision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I just don't understand what sealioning I because what's been presented here doesn't seem to meet any of the common definitions of sealioning... If there's a pattern here it certainly isn't clear. I don't think I've "tried to justify themselves multiple times using years old edits" so you're going to need to actually make that argument rather than just cast aspersions. Also note the irony of referring to editors who disagree with you as "this crowd" and casting aspersions against all of them in a discussion about supposed battleground behavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unconvinced that the totality of evidence here rises to the level of a sanction. FWIW, called Rschen7754 "a leader of the extremist wing" of WP:ROADS editors. is hardly false, is it? Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Black Kite, just because something isn't false (and it is false) doesn't mean it should be said. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, one can argue that either way, but it's certainly not an unreasonable position to take. I would expect a sanction to be applied where aspersions had been made that were clearly unreasonable. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also, calling somebody a religious or political extremist may be classified a personal attack. Calling someone an extremist in terms of their interpretation of wiki policies is definitely not a personal attack. HEB wasn't suggesting the user belonged to some secretive far right sect, he was saying that his interpretation of the rules was a minority view at the far end of a continuum. From the COI squabbling on here, I get the impression that HEB might well be "a COI extremist". I trust nobody will be reaching for the New Section button upon reading that? Not even HEB himself.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, precisely. Rschen's interpretation of the sourcing required for ROADS articles was certainly at the extreme end of a continuum, which is why I don't think HEB's comment was unreasonable. Yes, HEB could perhaps wind in the level of their comments sometimes, but as I said above I don't think that they're running past the levels required for a sanction. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Given the way the word "extremist" is almost always used outside of Wikipedia, which is to say that it's used to describe terrorists and the worst of people's political/religious views, it's a heck of a word to use when you merely disagree with a person's stance on a Wikipedia policy. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can't say I would like to be called an extremist in anything, and I bet rschen wouldn't either. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Saying stuff another editor doesn't like isn't what a personal attack is. This comment is entirely about on-wiki behavior, and it's also, frankly, obviously true. Loki (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because calling someone an extremist isn't a personal attack? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  If a description of their behaviour is at one end of a measure of on-wiki behaviour, absolutely it isn't. In fact I'm slightly bemused that it could be taken as such (unless it's untrue, of course). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm reasonably certain Rschen7754 has called me an extremist on notability at some point - and if they haven't, someone else certainly has. So long as the allegation is made in an appropriate location - and HEB's was - such allegations don't amount to personal attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you thinking of this from (ironically) @The ed17: in that same conversation "That's a pretty extreme stance."[37] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could be, not sure - although I’m surprised to see The ed17 make such a statement given their expressed concerns about similar wording; I hope they will now be willing to withdraw those concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Extremist" is almost always used to describe the worst of society. That the word is derived from "extreme" does not mean that they are similar in use or impact. I'd invite you both to re-read what I posted above, where I called out the problems with using "extremist" in that context, and continue on to explore how the two words are used outside of Wikipedia. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I find that very disappointing and hypocritical; there is no significant difference between the two statements, with the Cambridge Dictionary even clarifying that a "group of extremists" is equivalent to "people with extreme opinions". BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I invite you to log off the dictionary, walk into a crowd of people, and see what happens when you accuse one person of being an extremist vs. accusing another of stating an extreme opinion in a social context. In any case, we're now off the topic of this ANI. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I genuinely doubt I will get a different response to saying someone is an "extremist on non-political topic X" than I would for saying some has an "extreme opinion on non-political topic X".

  I also disagree this is off topic; it is appropriate to consider your behaviour here as the filer, including whether you engaged in the same behaviour you are objecting to others engaging in. Regardless, I’m happy to drop this now; we’re not going to agree, and I believe I’ve made my point. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think the difference is that "extremist" is seen negatively when it refers to political issues, but elsewhere it can just be descriptive. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would have absolutely no problem with it, indeed I've described myself as an extremist on several occasions in terms of questions such as teaching practices and views on mobile phones. I'm wondering if this is perhaps a difference between linguistic variants.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're absolutely free to call yourself an extremist if you like. I don't know whether it comes down to linguistic variants, but from what I gather, in the context of the diff, and in the context of calling others extremists on Wikipedia, doing so has registered as a personal attack because it shifts the conversation away from the disagreement and the interpretation being wrong, toward the character of the person, suggesting that they are are wrong not because of a different perspective or disagreement, but because they are, as a person, "extreme" and therefore unreasonable and illogical, not to be reasoned with as a thinking interlocutor but instead dismissed as a force of nature. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, of course. While my interactions with HEB have been mostly positive, I understand that it hasn't been the case for most, especially the roads crowd. I would say further discussion of sanctions might be needed, as well. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I want HEB to stay an editor for years to come–they've been kind and productive with me for some time now–but polemic comments on LDS issues in particular (like this one) seriously worry me. A formal warning is often the least invasive but effective measure, and I hope this is the last of the issue so we can all go back to working together. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I've seen some of the fictional character articles coming out of paid BYU accounts. Reasonable people can disagree, but I think some push back against minor character articles is reasonable. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Leaving aside a few issues which I assume will lead a closing admin to discount this comment (that this ignores the conversation above in favor of a content dispute, that this account knew Wikipedia policies from its first edit one month ago, and that this account could also make references to edit summaries, original research, markup, and wikicode a ~week later)—is your use of the phrase "fictional character articles" meant to refer to figures from the Book of Mormon? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The disagreement amongst some editors as to whether the Book of Mormon is a work of fact or fiction is the single most alarming aspect of this entire dispute. Levivich (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, myth or fiction. I don’t even think the BYU editors are trying to argue the Book of Mormon should be treated as fact in this context, though one can reasonably expect that their religious beliefs include such. In fact, the BYU editors have responded favorably to rewrites that improved POV. DJ Cane (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having been the editor involved in that example of favorable response, I can comprehend the trepidation Levivich expresses, but I want to emphasize that the gracious response to edits I've made (including edits that connect Book of Mormon content to the early American context) has left me optimistic that these editors are willing to meet the Wikipedia project on its terms as NPOV goes. I think the way DJ Cane assesses the situation is spot on. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Do you agree my interpretation of policy on my first edit was correct? Please help me fix that page, as someone reverted me for not understanding policy correctly there. I thought user generated content wasn't reliable, but was told there is an exception for video game walkthroughs. I left it be because unsure. I try to read all of the linked policies but there are so many Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per the comments that I and numerous other editors have said above. I agree with some of the concerns expressed here, that this may not be a strong enough outcome to ensure adequate compliance. On the other hand, I think it's acceptable to go a little gently at this point, in the hope that HEB will actually take this to heart, as he has already suggested above that he might do in some form: [38]. As for those editors who oppose the proposal (a significant number of whom I recognize as perennial opposers of any criticisms of civility failures by anybody), I do think it's worth noting that HEB did say that, and this is a pretty gentle sanction to place: it's basically just asking that he do as we expect all editors to do, but with the added condition that he has been warned that significant failure will come under administrator discretion. (And I'm not buying the arguments for oppose that rest on the desire to strengthen one "side" in the LDS POV dispute.) I see this as a kind of WP:ROPE, although given the past history, the rope will not be infinite in length. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much as per Tryptofish. I definitely have stronger views about what constitutes acceptable conduct than some of the other people in this discussion, but I'm also pretty certain that HEB's conduct if continued will be a disruptive drain. I could probably be persuaded to support a stronger sanction, but have nothing in mind to propose myself. I would prefer not to conflate patterns of behaviour that occur across articles with limited issues about Mormonism. Hopefully HEB will read this discussion, regardless of whether this specific proposal passes or not, and take peoples' concerns on board. The Land (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I’ve been very concerned about BYU paid editing. I think it’s inherently a COI issue, and I’ve brought this up before. These are people being paid by the Mormon church to edit articles about Mormonism. I think in general BYU funding editing is a good thing – the Mormon church has great records, and I’m sure most of their edits are helpful – but we do need to recognize these folks do have a COI, and we do need to oversee these edits.

HEB may be too aggressive, but we shouldn’t restrict anyone checking these edits from being able to do so. These edits are COI edits and need to be checked, and we need this oversight, even if it’s occasionally a bit aggressive. Valereee (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Valeriee, "paid by the Mormon church to edit articles about Mormonism" isn't really a fair representation of what's going on. Rachel Helps, if I remember correctly, is paid by the BYU library to make some of the unique resources of that library available to Wikipedia. Yes, the library is owned by BYU, which is owned by the church, but the degrees of separation matter. There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits. I hope you'll take a few minutes to read her user page where she makes that relationship clear and is very upfront about her COI and POV. In practice she gets more scrutiny than many other editors in the topic area (probably because of her username). Whenever I review her edits I find careful, helpful, gnomish editing. I've seen a number of somewhat contentious issues where she offers helpful resources or ideas but holds back from !voting or taking a side. For example I remember her staying fairly neutral in discussions about eliminating the word "Mormon" after the LDS Church asked its members to stop using the word.

I also remember when HEB started stalking and hounding Rachel. It went waaaay too far. I'm traveling and on mobile right now, but if the diffs aren't linked somewhere above I can track them down if you want.

Anyway, you can research and form your own opinion. I just wanted to share my own findings. ~Awilley (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits." I don't think thats true, for example recently they've been focusing on The Book of Mormon to get wikipedia ready for a new Sunday school curriculum on the Book of Mormon which is being rolled out. So these edits are coordinated with the Church at large and meant to advance its purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I consider it more likely that, being a Latter-day Saint who works at BYU, Rachel Helps (BYU) noticed that the LDS Church's Book of Mormon Sunday school curriculum (which has been announced ahead of time for years) might prompt more attention by people on Book of Mormon topic Wikipedia pages. I'd compare it to how, say, for example, with a U. S. presidential election on the horizon in 2024, there are probably American Wikipedia editors who are giving more attention to U. S. presidential election articles. I consider it a win for Wikipedia if responsible and responsive editors like Rachel Helps (BYU) and the students she trains help us as experienced editors get out ahead of masses of lay members (who, less familiar with policies like Reliable Sources and NPOV, might want to add citations to things like the Sunday School manual or scripture verses, rather than to the published scholarship Wikipedia should cite). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

They plural not they singular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like me using the singular "they" to refer to you, I am sorry about that; I didn't see information on your HEB user page about what pronouns are appropriate so I figured using gender neutral terms was best. But I don't understand how disagreeing about whether or not "they" can be singular is ultimately relevant? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't refer to anyone using they and you have no basis for thinking anyone here has a problem with using singular they. If you don't understand what heb meant, why not ask instead of low key suggesting heb has a problem with gender neutral pronouns. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think something has been lost in translation, I prefer the singular they (but don't make a big deal when people use he/she, the OG account name made a lot of people think I was a man because they read it as a reference to Jack (name) not Horse-eye jack) for myself. What I meant there was that by "they" I was referring to the whole ecosystem of paid BYU editors, not just Rachel Helps (BYU). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think that talking about how Rachel Helps (BYU) goes about this covers the matter. All the other BYU paid editors are employees of Rachel Helps (BYU) whom she supervises, as she discloses on her user page: I employ BYU students who edit Wikipedia under my supervision. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Awilley, I have read her user and those of multiple of her interns. I've read multiple articles created and edited by her interns. I have zero doubt that Rachel and her interns are operating completely in good faith. That doesn't mean they don't have a COI, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't regard their edits as COI edits and give them the additional attention we'd give the edits of any other well-intentioned COI editor. I wish HEB would be less aggressive and I have no problem with us telling them so. What I object to is the threat of a t-ban from LDS. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's any reassurance, only Softlavender and I have suggested any kind of topic ban. The actual proposal before us states that HEB would be warned. Are you willing to support a warning in which ANI tells HEB to be less aggressive, on not only Mormon studies topics but in the other topic areas addressed in the OP and some of the comments that followed? (e. g. targeting user Simon Harley and contributions made citing the Dreadnaught Project, condescending interactions with users on football topics, etc.?) And as far as COI goes, I find that I agree with DJ Cane: Having HEB’s aggression/targeting mixed in will not resolve or add any value to the process of paying responsible attention to the activities of paid editors. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

P-M, the proposal goes on to say As such, I'd like to move for a formal admonishment. As part of that, HEB would be warned that if their battleground behavior continues, admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied. A lot depends on the closer, but depending on the close language, with a close that includes that language, an individual administrator could indef for a minor infraction and require agreement to a restriction for unblock. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits. Reviewing her edits, maybe not, but telling her what to do? Absolutely. That's the issue with BYU: policy is set by LDS Church. BYU faculty/staff/students/alum have raised these concerns for years; somewhere up above I linked to a newspaper article about it, and it's discussed in the Wikipedia article about BYU. Theirs is a very widely known and ongoing issue with LDS Church constraining academic freedom at BYU. [39]. We even have a whole article about it, Academic freedom at Brigham Young University. As I understand it, BYU's mission is to support/promote the LDS Church and BYU employees are required to further that mission (or at least prohibited from impeding it). This is what makes BYU unlike other religious-affiliated universities. It's not just like "oh we're a Christian university" by vague values or precepts or history, it's a university actually wholly owned and operated by a church. That's more like a seminary than a university. Levivich (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above, particularly Black Kite. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Come on, BilledMammal. If I said you were an extremist regarding Wikipedia policies, and doubled down on it being the truth, you wouldn't like that, huh? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your select responses to opposition votes feels borderline WP:INAPPNOTE. Tooncool64 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am 90% certain you meant to link to WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you for the correction! Tooncool64 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  See the reply that I made to one of your earlier comments in this section. BilledMammal (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Given both the scope of the OP and the breadth of the issues raised semi-independently by many different editors above, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest that any kind of sanction or admonishment here should hinge on whether one agrees with HEB's interpretation of COI in one narrow context. First off, even just looking at what has been shared in the diffs here, some of their comments in that area are deeply WP:battleground and entirely inappropriate for a collaborative project, even if (and it's a big if) we adopt their view on the COI issue. top to bottom. I share the concern of others here that many of these comments seem to come as an effort to cow other editors once a dispute has begun, with comments rapidly escalating into needlessly personalized comments (that is to say WP:PAs, really), and accusations of impropriety seemingly designed to undermine the rhetorical opposition's credibility.
  But even if we dismissed the entire cluster of issues connected with their disputes surrounding accusations of COI, there's still more than enough here to warrant community response: and an admonition is an incredibly weak form of response at that. However, perhaps the factor that most prompts my support, as an uninvolved but concerned community member, is the massive display of WP:IDHT throughout this thread. HEB is not categorically incorrect that a high degree of productive edits and many edits made in less disruptive interactions go towards buffering against criticism when their conduct is found to be sub-par. I for one do consider those ameliorating factors when forming an opinion about whether the time has come for community action. But only up to a point. And when I say "up to a point", I don't mean that we should measure such things as matter of a ratio of volume of good edits vs. disruptive behaviours. Rather, I mean, there are certain thresholds that once passed, require the community to intervene. And there's evidence of plenty of that above. Honestly, I might very well have supported a sanction with more teeth under the circumstances, and I feel a warning at the least is more than appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, just not enough there. I'm particularly concerned about the characterization of the BDS and LDS edits as "harassment", which by my reading is sufficiently baseless to qualify as WP:ASPERSIONS. Editors can disagree over what qualifies as a COI; doing so is not a basis for sanctions. The discussions should have been taken to WP:COIN by the editors involved; while in HEB's position I would have gone to COIN myself, the fact that the people on the other side of the debate didn't go there to seek affirmation for their actions suggests that they were not completely confident that that affirmation would be forthcoming, which implies that the dispute fell into the grey area that forms reasonable disagreements over policy. COI itself is an extremely important policy that often has vague borders at its edges; I'd be opposed to anything that might create a precedent that editors can essentially ignore COI concerns and then accuse the editors raising them of harassment if the issue doesn't disappear. We have valid resolution channels to resolve those disputes, which everyone involved was aware of, and which and (as far as I can tell) nobody here was confident enough in their position to go through them; therefore, it was just a protracted policy dispute, which isn't sanctionable. I'm also deeply concerned with the characterization of edits here as sealioning; Wikipedia isn't a casual discussion forum. Sealioning is a serious problem in places where the demand for sourcing or evidence is inappropriate and is being weaponized to place undue burden on one side of a discussion, but here on Wikipedia, you are, in fact, required to produce evidence for most major assertions you make related to editor conduct or article content decisions; if someone repeatedly asks you to produce evidence you've already produced, that would be misconduct, but that's not what I'm seeing in the discussions linked above. Looking over the evidence above, the people interacting with HEB were often making sweeping WP:ASPERSIONs with no evidence, for which a request for evidence was appropriate - eg. [40], which I'm shocked TCN7JM would have the audacity to present as evidence against another person. TCN7JM's statement there, which HEB was responding to, was You know this, otherwise there'd be no reason your side has been so heavily pushing for it. C'mon buddy, you're smarter than this; and HEB's response to that blatant provocation was a fairly andodyne request that TCN7JM provide something to back their sweeping assertions up. TCN7JM made sweeping WP:ASPERSIONs against an entire group of editors with no evidence, phrased in an obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND manner, then had the audacity to call for sanctions against someone simply for asking them for evidence? That is the sort of thing that, to me, would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as an aside, reading the above, has some agreement been made among the parties that this question must be taken to WP:COIN once this discussion is concluded? It seems pretty evident it should, given it is largely disagreement on this policy which has created this situation. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a formal admonishment. (Didn't receive the ping.) The editor frequently personalises disputes and engages in behaviour that reads to me as bullying, yet seems incapable of understanding that this is wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose When looking at the diffs in context I'm not seeing it and agree with the comments of Levivich and Black Kite. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per Ed, but I for one think it should be more than that. JM (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a formal admonishment. Per Espresso Addict, who puts it well. This is nothing to do with roads or LDS, neither of which I was previously aware of, but seeing him around elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, without prejudice to a further discussion about more serious sanctions. HEB serially tags pages for notability without any attempt at article improvement. Given the rapidity of these tagging runs it is clear they conduct no WP:BEFORE checks to confirm if the article is notable. Examples:

1. January 4, 2024 tagged 12 articles in 14 minutes with 10 further edits in between.
2. June 24, 2023 tagged 28 articles in several rapid bursts.
3. June 14, 2023 tagged 15 articles in 26 minutes.
4. June 3, 2023 tagged 21 articles in 26 minutes.
5. June 2, 2023 tagged 16 articles in 12 minutes.
6. April 28, 2023 tagged 9 articles in 19 minutes.
7. April 27, 2023 tagged 11 articles in 13 minutes.

Their MO seems to be tag the article then demand anyone challenging their tags prove themselves, as shown above often aggressively. Yet they have only ever nominated 5 articles for deletion [41] with a 0.00% success rate. A further question should be, should HEB be topic banned from article tagging? 1.145.151.182 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Given the rapidity of these tagging runs it is clear they conduct no WP:BEFORE checks to confirm if the article is notable". No that's not clear. That's a ridiculous statement. If you're going to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, you need to provide incontrovertible evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 03:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging an article for notability does not require a BEFORE check. JoelleJay (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

and I hardly think being unsuccessful on a total of 5 RfCs that they've nominated in a bit over 3 years is noteworthy. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I only nominated those pages when asked to by others, generally I think that the appropriate time between tagging for notability and nominating for deletion is measured in years. Note that my approach is the opposite of aggressive... You're seriously criticizing me for not just sending them straight to AfD en-mass? Also note that the close edit times are based on lining multiple articles up in tabs because thats often the most efficient way to research related topics (one source might be applicable to multiple pages). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am criticizing you for what appears to be a lack of diligence. While WP:BEFORE is not mandatory before tagging an article for notability, conducting a basic search for sources to confirm your suspicions is just good practice. It takes even the fastest editors much more than a minute to search Google, Google books, Google scholar, the Internet Archive etc under various search terms (and that is a basic search). This diff from above springs to mind if you claim you do this for the thousands of articles you tag in exceptionally short timeframes. And reviewing your AFD noms, personalized WP:BLUDGEONing those who oppose your noms seems to be the common trend. I agree completely with the comment directly below, you take an uncompromising approach in relentlessly enforcing unconventional interpretations of WP policies and guidelines. And you from what you have written here, you seem to be steadfast in the face of all criticizm. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC).

Good practice according to who? Which policy are you relying on in your sweeping generalisation when you attack HEB's character? You've not providing anything substantive here which backs up any of the tenuous assertions you've made. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not unique in holding these views: WP:DRIVEBY / WP:CLEANUPTAG / WP:RESPTAG. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC).

I'm sorry but you don't have me at all. You were accusing an editor of not following some policy you made up prior to placing notability tags and then when challenged you refer to a help article, a information article and a essay which don't pertain to your assertion that they ought to have been doing a full AfD-before every time they place a notability tag. This is weak sauce. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you overestimate my productivity by an order of magnitude, we simply aren't talking about thousands and thousands of articles (I only have 60k edits total or something like that). Also note that the diff you provided is not from a page I tagged for notability, its a page I tagged for verification (I have no doubt that the topic is notable). If you think that my notability tagging is bad perhaps you would like to provide substantive examples of pages I tagged for notability where reliable sources could easily be found (aka where it doesn't seem like I looked for sources)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure: [42][43][44]. All of your AFD nominations were argued on notability grounds, the fact that 100% of them have failed would suggest your understanding of notability is at odds with the community's. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

HEB has nominated 5 AfDs in his 3 and a bit years. Yawn. Ultra weak sauce. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Two flaws in the complaints here. "tags pages for notability without any attempt at article improvement" makes no sense. WP:Notability is about the topic, not the article quality. Also wp:before is merely a recommendation for AFD and not even a recommendation for tagging for notability. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I've raised concerns about HEB on previous occasions, including the NFL discussion and the 2022 discussion about Rachel Helps. My impression of HEB is that they're a good editor who has three tendencies which when combined cause problems: (1) they hold some heterodox views on policies, (2) they're unwilling to back down on arguing in favor of those views, and (3) they cross the line into personalizing disputes. This combination is unfortunate, and if you're on the wrong side of a policy discussion the effect is aggressive and disconcerting. Skimming above, they're participating in the discussion (good) and don't agree that they need to change their approach (less good). Being "right" isn't enough in a collaborative project, and it's not all clear that their interpretation of COI policy is in line with the community's. Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I have in fact agreed to change my approach around COI, I will be bringing issues to COIN if a brief talk page discussion proves unsatisfactory to the involved parties rather than entering into an extended talk page discussion or one spanning multiple talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I'm a little surprised to see that you've "agreed to change your approach" (on what I assume is the basis of this comment?) when that changed approach above doesn't agree with what you said you "could get behind" in that diff. Changing your approach is not the same thing as a voluntary editing restriction, and a brief talk page discussion is not the same thing as "in lieu of a talk page in any namespace." I'd personally want to workshop a voluntary restriction with other individuals in this discussion and ask you to formally commit to it, so I've started a new sub-section. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The comment above about "heterodox views on policy" certainly rings true. I was astonished to lectured be HEB last year on how apparently scientific knowledge is just "opinion" and needs to be attributed on Wikipedia. They informed me[45] of my apparent misunderstanding and suggested all my work on Wikipedia (that's 60,000 edits) would need "cleanup" with their help. Fortunately in the articles I edit there is enough weight of consensus this sort of thing is just dismissed as HEB going off on one, to be ignored. A combination of extreme zeal and fundamental misunderstanding is not a good thing, and even where HEB is "right" on the merits (as they often are), it should be noted Wikipedia has been changing over the years and these days WP:BRIE. Bon courage (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. The potential conflict of interest is not the point here. There are ways to address conflicts of interest on Wikipedia without bullying, harassing, intimidating, and personally insulting editors. HEBs behavior is simply unacceptable in a community that values open discourse and communication. It discourages potential editors from participating in the process and has a chilling effect on newer and less experienced editors. HEB has consistently violated the basic rules of civility and respect that the Wikipedia community relies on. There have to be consequences for this kind of behavior. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@BoyNamedTzu: is this noticeboard discussion being talked about off-wiki in LDS forums? You haven't edited since November and have never before commented on a noticeboard before so this is a bit puzzling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

HEB raises a valid point here. @BoyNamedTzu, given your contribution history, what exactly is your knowledge of this? TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal could be better handled with a WP:TROUTing of HEB for being too personal / biting with some of their comments. Nothing else formal needs to happen here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Everything - I will keep this brief for fear of a swift indeffing, but suboptimal behavior is not malum in se. If we go about judging everyone on their bad interactions on bad days, there will be no one left to obsess over the minutiae we all crave. Perhaps others have different experiences, but in my life, I have known collegial people to disagree, to verbally spar, and even sometimes to end up using intemperate words. Should HEB do better? Absolutely. So should we all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Further comment. I already said above that I support the proposal, and further up above I showed diffs of the gravedancing edits, but I just remembered something that really needs to be pointed out here. Just after the gravedancing incident that I detailed above, HEB followed me to an essay that I had written, and made disruptive and WP:POINTy joke edits there: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. He also made constructive edits in the course of doing that, and of course there's nothing wrong with trying to improve an essay that someone else had started. But the edits I highlight here range from not particularly constructive to plainly vexatious. Coming as it did, immediately after the gravedancing incident, it seems to me to be a mean-spirited settling of the score. And that fits very much into the pattern of conduct described by so many other editors here. It seems to me that an admonishment here is pretty lenient. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  This definitely fits the pattern of behavior: after not immediately getting their way with a user on one page, HEB's subsequent edits end up including confrontational attention on other pages that user is involved in. It was the same way Simon Harley: HEB started cutting citations to the Dreadnaught Project after seeing Simon Harley's blog post. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's annoying that the allegation of canvassing / alleged canvassing is distracting from the actual pattern of behaviour here, which is problematic. JM (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Just don't see enough evidence here for this action to be needed at this time. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing here rises to the level of sanctions or even a need for a slap-on-the-wrist formal criticism. The worst offense seems to be the way-too-quick-tagging behaviour, which could draw a few trouts if not done very carefully and correctly. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• I dont particularly like HEB and have generally found it to not exactly be a joy to participate in the same discussions with them, but I dont see it here, so oppose. nableezy - 17:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'm reading 17 for and 18 against. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Additionally there has been strong allegations of WP:CANVASING for the for side. I don't see any community purpose in continue this. Everyone needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Can an administrator please close this as there is no consensus for anything. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Voluntary editing restriction workshopping

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

---

HEB has indicated that they would be open to a voluntary editing restriction when it comes to confronting editors they believe have a conflict of interest. That seems to be at the root of many, albeit not all, of the concerns expressed by many above.

My specific proposal would be: When HEB becomes concerned that a contributor is editing with a conflict of interest, they will bring their concerns to WP:COIN in lieu of a talk page in any namespace. This would help avoid the concerns with HEB's style of discussion as editors with more experience in dealing with COI can quickly course-correct as needed. I've no idea if this idea is good or could be improved on; perhaps HEB should be punting all their concerns to COIN and not engaging further, or perhaps there's a way to allow HEB limited engagement on user talk pages (their preference). So, please chime in below.

The admonishment proposal should continue above, as I imagine it and a voluntary restriction would work hand in hand (assuming the admonishment passes). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Twice when I've tired of arguing with HEB over what constitutes COI editing for my team, I asked him to take me to COIN, in part to see if his accusations were serious, and also to force the issue (to see if there was consensus about his complaints). When he declined, I assumed that he was not as sure of his accusations against me as he seemed. This also made me feel like he was trying to intimidate me out of editing rather than follow policy. I would rather HEB lodge a complaint against me on COIN than repeatedly make the same arguments about my editing on my talk pages and the talk pages of various pages I edit. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  One of the issues here is that this has been brought up at COIN before, including by me. What happened there is other WiR objected to the idea that a WiR needed to disclose on an article talk, as that might endanger the program. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Right now we are discussing HEB's behavior. If you would like to discuss mine, let's move to my talk page or COIN. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Rachel, you brought up taking this to COIN. And it's been brought up on your user before, and you rejected the idea of disclosing at article talk. Which I don't really understand. Why not simply voluntarily disclose? Valereee (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#COI Article Talk disclosure. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, same reasons as above. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because this is a proposed voluntary restriction, and HEB has already agreed to some kind of that, this isn't really a support/oppose situation Rachel Helps (BYU) and Levivich. :-) The idea is to improve the proposal so it's effective in curbing HEB's worst impulses without losing their productivity, then ask HEB to sign onto it. Do you have any thoughts about how it could be improved? Or to Rachel in particular, are you saying that you like the proposal as written? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think this would be improved if you dropped the stick and stopped pushing for restrictions. If an editor wants to undertake a voluntary restriction, then let it be voluntary. If an editor wants your help with a voluntary restriction, they'll ask. Proposing a "voluntary restriction" is not fooling anybody. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I'm sorry, can you show were I have been pushing for editing restrictions elsewhere? I believe the closest I've come to that is at 07:55, 6 January 2024, to which HEB replied that they would be open to a voluntary restriction along the lines I proposed. (Note that an admonishment is not a restriction.) While HEB has the ability to do whatever they'd like, I personally think it would have more helpful to them and everyone else if it's collaboratively built. That is the ethos of Wikipedia, after all, plus a voluntary restriction that doesn't impact the concerns raised by many people above is pretty useless. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I like how you added "elsewhere" to your question, as if I said "elsewhere." I didn't. You've pushed in this thread here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Levivich: By "elsewhere", I meant "outside this sub-section". I apologize for the ambiguity and ask for your good faith. I started the larger thread with a call for an admonishment, which is explicitly not a restriction despite you including that in your diff bombing. And rather than advocating for restrictions, I explicitly said that I didn't think there would be support for enforced editing restrictions, which you would have seen while compiling those diffs. So again, I'd politely push back on your assertion that I need to drop a stick, as I was never holding one. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for misunderstanding. I like the proposed idea for COI discussions with HEB. I do not think it will resolve the several discussions about "independent" sources that HEB has been involved in. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment for the time being while I think about this. While COI plays a prominent role in HEB's behavior toward Simon Harley and Rachel Helps (BYU), I'm not sure I would say COI is at the root of many, albeit not all, of the concerns; COI seems to be at the root of a few of the situations. Many other diffs shared both in the OP and throughout the comments on this thread are about battlegrounding, sealioning, incivility, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both because this doesn't actually address the issue that many people seem to have with my edits and also because once again its a privilege not a restriction (every other editor would have to open a talk page discussion *first* whereas I would have the unique privilege of being able to go to COIN first). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: Would you be open to proposing edits that would improve on the proposal? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Without tongue in cheek, this is putting the cart before the horse. A voluntary restriction does not need "workshopped" by the community as if it were some enforceable sanction. And as HEB points out, this could be seen as bypassing the "discuss the issue with the editor first" culture we've developed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Moot because HEB says just above that he opposes it, and anything "voluntary" simply won't work on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I proposed this so people could edit and improve it, not support/oppose, but I guess that ship has sailed. I did intentionally start it from a proposal that HEB said they "could get behind". HEB is free to propose improvements. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. At this point, it looks like the admonishment proposal is more likely to be productive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because I simply don't believe it will make a difference. I think a formal repromand is appropriate (as voted above), but I don't believe HEB will keep to a voluntary restriction created through collaboration in this forum thus I don't think it's worth the time and energy. Let's see how HEB responds to appropriate criticism in this discussion. Outside of the concerns listed in this discussion, HEB has demonstrated themself to be a reasonable and constructive participant in Wikipedia and as such I think they should be able to self correct - in effect leaving HEB to decide what sort of voluntary changes they should make. If, after a formal repromand, HEB continues to be disruptive in COI, notability, deletion, and other discussions I think it would be appropriate to issue formal non-voluntary restrictions. DJ Cane (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Canvassing here?

For the record, this has nothing to do with the LDS Church-side of this dispute. I have no awareness of anything going on with that part of Wikipedia. This has not come up yet. Has no one noticed that:

• MatthewAnderson707, who hasn't been active in months, somehow found this thread just to comment in opposition to HEB.
• 1.145.151.182, who has never edited before on that specific IP, makes their first edit just to criticize HEB. I'm aware that IPs can change, but nothing in this range suggests they would have any interest in HEB before this point.

Those are just the most blatant examples. Two is coincidence I don't accept.

I'd also like to bring people's attention to this comment:

I have been personally warned by more than one user from interacting with HEB due to what they characterized as trollish behavior. I don't think any of them have commented here yet. My experience with HEB does not deviate far from their descriptions. Qiushufang (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Qiushufang explicitly stated they were personally approached by persons whose only intention was to malign HEB privately. I am glad Qiushufang admitted this publicly because I have been aware of this behavoir for quite some time but could not inform Horse Eye's Back about it since it occurred offwiki. From my perspective, it would seem that there is an semi-organized campaign that has existed (either presently or in the past) against HEB. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Qiushufang and MatthewAnderson707, as you've named them.

As the OP, I'm compelled to say that I have never canvassed/been canvassed to take an action related to HEB. That includes this discussion/proposal, which was collated and written without input from anyone else.

My read of Qiushufang's comment was a bit gentler—that they were told something like 'I'm sorry for your experience, we've tried but failed to deal with them, and you might find that it's easiest to avoid them'. They may be able to say more, should they choose. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. I was contacted by individuals describing HEB's behavior as either unfortunate or trollish after a brief but negative interaction I had with HEB. I don't disagree with them and I assume they have HEB's talk and contrib pages on watch at all times because I had no prior interactions with these people. I did not contact anybody despite HEB saying it was OK to do so. Qiushufang (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you said something because I thought it was just me. It seems wildly obvious that "something is afoot," and I don't think it's limited to this thread: the number of new/inexperienced editors calling for sanctions on this page right now is beyond what AGF can handle. And that's coming from me, the undisputed world champion of new editors posting too much at ANI. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No one sent me a link to this or told me to post here, if that's what you're saying. This was done entirely by my own actions. There was no posting because for the most part, I'm done posting on Wikipedia. Just because I don't post doesn't mean I don't still keep up from time to time through observation. I got involved because this is an issue I personally feel strongly about and felt like it warranted a post. Unless you have proof that anyone canvassed, bringing me here, don't make baseless assumptions or accusations. I do not appreciate that. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You left when roads split and have now come back to comment in an ANI thread with the person you had argued with at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/News and notes (which, I now realize, involved many of the editors in this discussion, including me). It's pretty obvious why you're here, and also obvious that you haven't just been reading ANI for three months... somebody posted something somewhere (probably AARoads) that alerted you to this. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a link on HEB's talk page which I do observe from time to time. Again, do you have any proof? — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

OK it would have been better if you said you watch ANI from time to time, because nobody is going to believe you've watched an editor's talk page for three months after leaving the project. The evidence is your contribs and presence here. Levivich (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I do observe his talk page from time to time. Not every day for three months, bit every couple of weeks. It's an obsessive habit caused by baseless paranoia that I admit needs to be broken. Whether anyone believes it or not, that's what happened. You're welcome to go right ahead and look around yourself on AARoads or anywhere else for that matter. You won't find any evidence of canvassing because that isn't what happened. Happy hunting. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What you're admitting to is worse than what you're being accused of. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Believe what you will, but I've said my piece. If you want to dispute whether it was against the rules or "worse than what I'm being accused of" over personal bias against anyone who takes issue with HEB, then be my guest. I refuse to give in to your scare tactics or this kangaroo court of an argument, with the mentality that anything I say can and will be used against me. Good day. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a kangaroo court. You admitted to basically only visiting Wikipedia to keep an eye on a user who you previously had a dispute with, then coming here to comment the moment you saw an opportunity to get them sanctioned. Frankly, if you don't just plain step away from Wikipedia, this admission alone would qualify for a one-way interaction ban to keep you away from HEB. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"I wasn't canvassed, I was stalking" is certainly a novel defense. Levivich (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Hypothetically, he wouldn't be the only one guilty of that. Remember, Qiushufang described multiple people messaging them after posting to HEB's talk page.

I don't believe MatthewAnderson was one of them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused here. I have a few users' pages watched as well for prior negative interactions with them as well as multiple warnings by several users that indicate they are a problem for the wider Wikipedia userbase. Some of them are banned now with confirmed sockpuppets. I would not have been alerted to their behavior if they weren't on my radar beforehand due to their behavior. IDK if this is something against Wiki policy or else why would you be able to watch other users' talk pages? It only seems natural that you would want to know about happenings concerning them, and someone like HEB who's had altercations across various non-related communities would have more than qualified for observation. Is the problem here that the user no longer uses Wikipedia, that they are being accused of canvasing, or the fact that they are monitoring HEB because I do that with a few users as well? Qiushufang (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

At issue is that this user admitted to walking away from Wikipedia except for an obsessive habit of coming back to check specifically on HEB's talk page. Then they ran straight here to chime in while sanctions were being discussed. That carries an air of grievance above and beyond just having someone on your radar while actively participating in the community & editing articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

One thing I did not mention aside from having no relation to these editors who sent me warnings about HEB is that they have no shared topics of interest either. Unless they are using socks, their areas of interest on Wikipedia are completely different and non-overlapping whatsoever, which makes canvassing together somewhat less likely. Qiushufang (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: you're going to need to substantiate those claims with an editor interaction report or links to the edit histories of the editors you've made those claims about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707: What is the dispute you had with HEB in the first place? Have you, like Qiushufang, ever received a warning message about Horse Eye's Back? Have you ever participated in offwiki discussions about HEB?

I encourage you to be honest in your responses. It wouldn't be right for you to be sanctioned for what other people did. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I had been wondering much the same thing myself; whether it had been posted on some private Roads forum - which we do know to exist based on interactions with Roads members in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What is Roads? JM (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• In no way do I mean to downplay the seriousness of the issue here, but in no way does it mitigate the issues with HEB. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I would agree (especially in regards to the LDS Church aspect of this). However, this needed to be said either way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, we agree. But these should be understood as two separate issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, I think that if canvassing has occurred here, it would go a long way to explain the bafflement many of us feel about how the difs above could be interpreted as serious breaches of policies.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue 100%. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• There also seems to be some possible evidence of LDS canvassing further up the page, in the post made by my near namesake. There may of course be an innocent explanation for a user who has not made an edit since November, and who has made a total of 198 edits suddenly finding their way to ANI for the first time. It would be nice to hear it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at BoyNamedTzu's edit log, it seems like BoyNamedTzu has been reading and editing pages with Mormon studies topics, including Mormon literature, which is where some of HEB's behavior took place. Maybe BoyNamedTzu noticed what was going on in pages adjacent to their activity and found their way to ANI for the first time the way I did: concluding that HEB's behavior had become an urgent matter, I came to the ANI board and was going to make a post here for the first time when I noticed there was already a thread about HEB. Rather than make a new thread, I commented on this thread. No canvassing was involved. It seems plausible to me that it could have been similar for BoyNamedTzu. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to make a very conscious effort to use the right spellings here, and correct the above post, given there are two users with very similar names and we risk descending into farce.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that typo. I've corrected it. Guess we're all enjoying Johnny Cash. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto:That seems a remarkable coincidence. Maybe HEB is related to that fella in Montana who keeps getting struck by lightning? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess I find it less remarkable than you do. BoyNameTzu's most recent activity in November is drafting an article about Sam, a figure from the Book of Mormon, and HEB has been active in talk pages about Book of Mormon content that BoyNamedTzu could have been looking at to get an impression of what pages covering similar topics look like; then BoyNamedTzu was inactive through December, possibly related to being busy during the holidays; now that the holidays are over, he is on Wikipedia again.

I'm not sure of the relevance of guessing who might be related to HEB. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any canvassing has occurred on the LDS-church side of this dispute, and I would not feel comfortable speculating as much. From what I can tell there are genuine concerns related to HEB's conduct regarding Mormonism, and nothing I have said should be used to take away from that fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no definite evidence of off-wiki organising, so yes, as things go we are still in AGF territory.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus

• NoonIcarus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lima Consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Guayana Esequiba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute#Requested move 4 December 2023
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 December (review of the above)

The user @NoonIcarus continues to be involved in move wars (1, 2). Also he continues to drive-by tag for NPOV disputes claiming that "... the article relies heavily on papers that reflect mostly the authors point of view, instead of a mainstream one." (1, 2) In both, when offered to add the sources of information he considers missing he declined.

He was notified that the simple opinion that an article is not neutral because it does not include enough mainstream references (who dets that?, see WP:Verifiability, not truth) is not enough to justify adding tags recklessly.

Even though he has been warned multiple times and finding that their problems continue, his purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. Ultranuevo (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

On a review of the above and recent contributions, this does not appear to me to meet the level of needing admin intervention. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I totally disagree, I may not have long-standing problems with NoonIcarus, but they do swith other Wikipedians. Ultranuevo (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ultranuevo's main point of contention is the following: I recently added the {{Disputed}} tags at the Lima Consensus (economy) and Plan Verde articles.

In the case of the former, editors had already expressed issues and the article is currently subject to an AfD, and I have already given reasons for the tags in both talk pages. Ultranuevo has repeatedly removed the cleanup tag ([51][52][53]), and I have warned them about edit warring:[54] --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend you to read WP:NPOV dispute. Ultranuevo (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfamiliar with the above issues, but following the recent closure of an RM NoonIcarus vigorously (around 19 comments) opposed as consensus to move, NoonIcarus is now edit warring in a recreation of parts of that article at the previous title they preferred. CMD (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Could NoonIcarus explain why yesterday (6 jan) they reverted a dozens edits that updated links to 'Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute' because of a RM this is seems like wp:pointy behaviour—blindlynx 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling of NoonIcarus in the header of this report and added some links. (Note the capitalized letter 'I' in the middle of the user's name). NoonIcarus has made a large number of reverts on a variety of articles during January 6. Evidently not everyone agrees with him that Guayana Esequiba (which was turned into a redirect by the outcome of the move discussion) deserves to be recreated as a separate article. It would be better for NoonIcarus to undo these changes until such time as agreement has been reached on a split. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Many thanks. There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute#Moving forward, although since the closer has commented that the closing statement did not necessarily endorse a split, I could start one formally to clarify the community's position on this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: Hi, kind regards. That is simply because the dispute is not the same as the region, and the edits massively removed any mention of the term. The main link has remained in several articles when aprropriate, such as South American territorial disputes and List of territorial disputes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The reverts you made don't support this, a good number of them are about the dispute and not the region for example [55], [56], [57]. Further it doesn't seems that 'Guayana Esequiba' is an neutral term for a region in others ([58]]). I agree that 'Guayana Esequiba' is appropriate in some cases such as [59] but there don't seem to be to many of these cases, but without a separate article it's largely an academic point—blindlynx 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Another example is this revert by NoonIcarus. It is not justifiable as the sentence is referring more to the border dispute, not the proposed state of Guayana Esequiba. It is unfair to the other editor. SOUTHCOM (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

La Salida

Moderated discussion of the article on La Salida, a Venezuelan opposition movement, had been open at DRN between User:WMrapids and User:NoonIcarus. The discussion had not been making much progress, but was still open. I have closed the mediation as failed because DRN does not handle any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or any conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Starting off, I'm going to be completely transparent here and note that NoonIcarus and I have had our differences; they have reported me here three times before on WP:ANI, with the first incident being completely understandable (my behavior was inappropriate) and I have done my best to be accountable and improve my conduct. Also for transparency sake, I advised @Ultranuevo: to make their own determination of NoonIcarus' behavior in this edit as I have been avoiding escalation with this user for months.

NoonIcarus is very skilled at gaming the system with civil point of view pushing, often stonewalling, bad faith negotiating and participating in other disruptive behavior. Instead of attempting to achieve consensus and engaging in healthy discussions, they treat the project as a high school debate forum, bogging down almost every discussion with bludgeoning and battleground behavior, proving that NoonIcarus is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia as they have a "[g]eneral pattern of disruptive behavior", have been "[t]reating editing as a battleground", have engaged in "[d]ishonest and gaming behaviors", have "[l]ittle or no interest in working collaboratively" and have held a "[l]ong-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". I will outline each of these behaviors in sections below.

Background: Interactions with NoonIcarus began in the move discussion on 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, my first large heated discussion on the project. The user commented in the move discussion about a previous move discussion on Operation Gideon (2020). In this discussion, I questioned why NoonIcarus made the comparison and began to review Operation Gideon (2020) and other Venezuelan articles. NoonIcarus then began to accuse me of attempting to make a point when I proposed move requests for 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and Operation Gideon (2020) in good faith. From there, edit conflicts have only escalated with the user.

Activism/Advocacy: While this description may be controversial given the topic of NoonIcarus' first ANI report on me, I will stand by this assessment. They began editing on English Wikipedia by expanding the Protests against Nicolás Maduro article. This strong POV of NoonIcarus is raised by multiple users in a previous WP:ANI report, "Jamez42's repeated block deletions", noting that Jamez42 was NoonIcarus' previous username. As I began to interact more with NoonIcarus over the past few months, I noticed their personal participation in the protests against the Maduro government. So, noticing their editing and history on the project, I asked the user about this; they were present at many Venezuelan opposition protests taking hundreds of photos within their first month on Wikipedia and were personally beside prominent opposition figures during future protests, including Miguel Pizarro[60] and Juan Requesens[61] . This activist approach appears to motivate NoonIcarus' edits on the project, which is completely inappropriate as it leads to disruptive disputes with other editors, evidenced by the multiple raised concerns from users that have now spanned for over four years without improved behavior.

Bad POV: One of the first issues I noticed with NoonIcarus' edits was their inappropriate or questionable removal of information from the project. This seems to align with the "Bad POV" behavior of activist users who participate in "[r]emoval of information contrary to what the activists know is 'right,'" which perfectly describes NoonIcarus' behavior in multiple edits.

In the collapsible boxes below, we can review how NoonIcarus' edits are consistent with conduct performed by advocacy and Bad POV users.

Ownership

During our discussion on Operation Gideon (2020), NoonIcarus directed me to WP:VENRS while attempting to support the use of sources. Upon recognizing that the sources they provided were opposed to the Maduro government, a position aligned with NoonIcarus' editing behavior, I raised concerns. At the time of being directed to WP:VENRS, NoonIcarus had provided the majority of the essay's content. Using this edit, NoonIcarus did not only use it to justify the ownership of information on a single article, they used it in ownership of nearly all Venezuelan topics. NoonIcarus not only did this with WP:VENRS, they did this with WP:RSP as well; this was apparently mentioned in a deprecated source's article itself (which was appropriately deprecated), though I will not mention this due to its doxxing concerns. So this activist behavior was not only noticed by users, but outside of the project as well, showing the gravity of NoonIcarus' edits. With this ownership behavior after becoming an apparent arbiter on Venezuelan sources, NoonIcarus, according to WP:ADVICEPAGE, "wrongly used [VENRS] as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope", beginning to delete content that did not align with their point of view through literally hundreds of edits.([62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]) Recognizing that NoonIcarus' behavior was inappropriate, I opened a request for comment to discuss the WP:VENRS essay's use (Important note: One will notice throughout this proposal that I have attempted to promote inclusion of other users through negotiation processes multiple times due to NoonIcarus' stonewalling, including with RfCs, third opinions and the more recent dispute resolution noticeboard request). As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is unknown how much or what particular information was removed in the hundreds of inappropriate WP:VENRS edits NoonIcarus made.

Inaccurate undue/synthesis claims

While NoonIcarus would target sources supposedly supportive of the Maduro government, they would vehemently oppose any sources they used being identified as aligning with the Venezuelan opposition. This occurred on the "Political stance sections" in the VENRS discussion page, which has been stonewalled since August 2023. On Efecto Cocuyo[79], Runrunes[80], El Nacional (Venezuela)[81] and El Pitazo[82], NoonIcarus removed information about such sources being described as "opposition" and instead promoted that they were "independent". It was explained multiple times that sources can be both "opposition" and "independent", though this was ignored. (WP:BADPOV)

Disruptive editing

After reviewing NoonIcarus' apparent activist editing behavior, it is clear that they are disruptive to the Wikipedia Project regarding political topics. Reviewing signs of disruptive editing, we can see that they have engaged in... Tendentious editing: NoonIcarus clearly has "a pattern of editing that is partisan." As mentioned by UltraNuevo, NoonIcarus has engaged in "an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources" when it does not align with their point of view. Their ownership of Venezuelan articles and their related sources, as noted above, shows that NoonIcarus is attempting to right great wrongs through their apparent activism. Repeating penalized edits: As we can see from the 2020 report, "Jamez42's repeated block deletions", NoonIcarus has continued the same behavior that they were previously blocked for. Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others: As noted above regarding sources described as being "opposition sources", where NoonIcarus removed cited additions on multiple occasions, alongside UltraNuevo's concerns about removing academic sources. Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject: This was actually discussed in another ANI report on NoonIcarus from 2018 titled "Political advocacy by Jamez42 / Susmuffin", where NoonIcarus provided undue importance of the history of tear gas usage by Venezuelan authorities in the El Paraíso stampede; this material is still included in the article at the moment. While this was reported by an IP user and paid advocacy is not confirmed, it is confirmed that NoonIcarus has been described as an advocacy user for years now. Not accepting independent input and refusal to "get the point": It is apparent that NoonIcarus disputes independent input; we can note that "no matter how many times a neutral third party intervenes, you never seem to get your way, that suggests that your goals may be at odds with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, community and purpose." This has occurred on multiple occasions with NoonIcarus. Regarding La Patilla, a Venezuelan opposition source that aligns with NoonIcarus' apparent point of view, they quickly disputed its designation as being an unreliable source. This also occurred following the supported move of Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, a topic they are still included in edit warring. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", drive-by tagging and over tagging: NoonIcarus has surgically used tags to civilly promote their point of view. I have discussed this before where I outlined how: "[In] this edit here where attribution is crystal clear (despite MOS:CLAIM wording), ... the Venezuelanalysis source and information was removed anyway [by NoonIcarus]. Even more egregious are these edits; the user removes the Venezuelanalysis source for an attributed statement and then in a subsequent edit, the user removes the attributed statement from the article entirely, saying it was "unsourced" (even though they removed the source)." @Burrobert: and I have raised this concern before; on Operation Gideon (2020) (see here), ZunZuneo (see here) while it occurred again recently on Plan Verde (see here). NoonIcarus also overtagged both Venezuelan opposition[83] and the Guarimba[84][85] articles (WP:BADPOV), including others. NoonIcarus will see information that does not agree with their point of view (BADPOV), tag it without discussion and then removes the information they don't agree with (usually after no user notices or discusses the tag). Drive away productive contributors: As mentioned above, NoonIcarus has engaged in ownership behavior regarding Venezuelan articles. This has likely prevented new users from participating in Venezuelan topics, which can arguably be recognized as a contentious topic and has limited participation. Since this behavior has occurred for years, the number of users repelled and subsequently the damage to neutrality regarding Venezuelan topics may be high. Inappropriate usage of "Stable version": It is noted that "It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. ... Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning." NoonIcarus has done this on multiple occasions to maintain their preferred version of an article.[86][87][88][89][90][91] Point illustrating: This has been more apparent recently and is why this report exists; the Lima Consensus (economy) article. One instance of point illustrating is when "someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion". Prior to this, NoonIcarus was last involved in Peru-related articles back in April 2023 when our first interactions began. Though the Lima Consensus article is not my "favorite article", it is one I created and went out of their way to delete it, apparently attempting to make things personal and upset me. They had previously proposed the deletion of one article I created only two days after it was created as well, ignoring standards of attempting to fix it first. This is simple battleground behavior, which can also be explained in the bludgeoning edits below. Bludgeoning: While this proposal itself is fairly lengthy itself (all of this did not happen overnight), NoonIcarus' bludgeoning behavior is clear through their consistent badgering. As noted in the "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others" section, the user has made extraordinary demands regarding the inclusion of material related to sources. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the La Salida article, where NoonIcarus described the goal of the campaign using a Venezuelan opposition politician's quote without proper attribution, writing that the goal "was to 'find a peaceful, democratic and constitutional solution to the government of Nicolás Maduro'", parroting Venezuelan opposition talking points creating false neutrality by watering down the language in support of the opposition. When I read about this history of La Salida, I provided independent, reliable sources that said the objective of La Salida was plainly to "remove Maduro", according to those sources. NoonIcarus consistently removed this information (WP:BADPOV) and engaged in bad faith negotiations, badgering me for a month by first saying it was not neutral (WP:BADPOV), moving the goalposts multiple times using their stable argument, then stating that a "compromise" was to describe the goal as "civil disobedience" (this was not mentioned in any source), then demanded "mainstream sources" instead of academic sources, then dismissed the sources as unreliable due to "covering the Venezuelan opposition in a negative tone", then inaccurately said the goal was to end the Bolivarian Revolution, etc. The continuous sealioning discussions and stonewalling my edits through edit warring (yes, I acknowledge it takes to users) are clearly disruptive as they badgered with more demands. Ultimately, their ownership behavior became clear in the La Salida discussion with two ultimatums of false choices they placed upon me; NoonIcarus saying "This can be a neutral way to express the peaceful purpose of the campaign ... If this isn't a good option, the original and last stable version should be restored" and the projection-like statement of "You should be open to work with others to find solutions, but if that's not the case, no changes will come out of it." As with other bludgeoning civil POV pushing that NoonIcarus has engaged in, this example shows how the user will "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view" while they also attempt to "argue that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral." This discussion is currently in dispute resolution after I made a request to solve the disagreement.

Recommendation: While I have done my best to maintain good faith in NoonIcarus' behavior hoping that we could collaborate, attempting to make any edits on the project for the past eight months has been a personal hell. Looking at the previous sanctions placed against NoonIcarus, I would recommend a topic ban on political articles for one year at a minimum since they did not remedy their behavior following previous sanctions. A topic ban appears to have been supported by multiple users in the the previous discussion and a ban of equal length as their previous sanction is suitable. Personally, I am hesitant to make this recommendation since NoonIcarus forgave my inexcusable behavior in the past, though after recently discovering that this is not new behavior and has been detrimental to multiple users in the past, I am hopeful that a break will be healthy for NoonIcarus and have positive results for them and other users going forward.--WMrapids (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You're absolutely going to have to condense this WP:WALLOFTEXT if anyone is going to act on your recommendation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Apologies for the wall of text, but much of the context was necessary especially since NoonIcarus is a skillful civil POV pusher. I’m not accustomed to providing ANI reports and as I mentioned, I was hesitant to make any recommendation at all. But this opinion changed quickly once they began personally targeting articles I created for no apparent reason and then reverting hours of edits I carefully performed regarding the Essequibo; @Blindlynx and Chipmunkdavis: note NoonIcarus' inappropriate behavior related to this above.

Overall, NoonIcarus has demonstrated time and time again that their modus operandi is death by a thousand cuts, so I felt like the thousand cuts had to be shown to those reviewing this incident for them to fully grasp what is actually going on. Sorry if this is a long response itself, but do you have a recommendation on how to condense this for readability sake? Thanks for providing an honest assessment of my recommendation. WMrapids (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I was planning to start a own thread about WMrapids' content blanking at Guayana Esequiba ([92][93]) and aspersions casting, which is a behavior that precisely has already denounced at ANI before: User:WMrapids (blanking), User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, but here we are. Previous discussions include but are not limited to WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS, WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS, WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda, WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition, WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba, Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Terrible article, Talk:La Salida#The goal was to remove Maduro, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#La Salida, and User talk:NoonIcarus#Advocacy?, among others.

As the user themselves concede, they have shifted from editing mostly about politics in Peru to Venezuela after a move discussion, doing massive and drastic changes in articles such as Operation Gideon (2020), Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Rupununi uprising, Venezuelan opposition and Guarimba. It's not the first time that WMrapids delves into edit history that spans years to find specific instances of wrongdoing about editors that they disagree with. A few weeks ago, in November, they left a long-winded at SandyGeorgia's talk page User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?, incidentally also accusing her of ownership in Venezuelan articles. Her response probably can offer good context of the situation: (#Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns). Before that, they accused new editor Elelch of being a SPA over disagreements about Peruvian topics: ANI#User:Elelch, and all of this is without mentioning the block for edit warring about Peruvian topics the Spanish Wikipedia last year. It's one thing to have editorial differences with other editors, especially in a topic so controversial like politics, and another one entirely different is having a systemic or long term abuse.

It seems that when I dispute changes it is disruptive editing and ownership, but when I discuss the edits or explain the opposition to the changes it is sealioning, stonewalling, badgering and bludgeoning (this last one is ironic due to the length of the message above, and they themselves have been warned against it in related RfCs). By this point they probably have accused me of everything in the book, even after the last time I tried extending an olive branch, which leads back to the aspersions issues I have mentioned before,

I'd be happy to answer to any related questions or concerns. There is simply too much information that is being oversimplified, but in the meantime I would highly recommend to mind a boomerang and analyze WMrapids' own behavior which, as I mentioned, is not limited to Venezuelan topics but Peruvian ones as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I would like to warn about potential canvassing at Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute ([94]), as well as the rest of the editors pinged above and below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The user NoonIcarus seems to have a lead editor approach and has almost been policing articles related to the Venezuelan-Guyana territorial dispute and related topics. Their contribution history shows an excessive amount of reverts against WMrapids which are hard to defend. Regarding articles related to Guyana in particular, there has been a significant amount of Venezuelan POV edits across the English and especially the Spanish Wikipedia that were overlooked by NoonIcarus but could have used his/her/their expertise. I questioned to myself why NoonIcarus did not see nor address some of the blatant vandalism and POV edits at the Spanish Wikipedia that remained there for months and even years. I'm not going to directly make claims or accusations here; I want to believe NoonIcarus has good will and look forward to working with them. We need the Venezuelan perspective and I hope NoonIcarus can be that person. We all have work to do in keeping our biases in check. WMrapids seems to be making great contributions and I think NoonIcarus should, at the very least, ease up on the policing of WMrapids' contributions. SOUTHCOM (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@SOUTHCOM: Can I help responding to specific cases? I can recall that not long ago I denounced an user precisely for edit warring and POV pushing in related articles (:es:3RR#Guayana Esequiba), who I see you have interacted with in the past [95] and used to place Venezuelan flags and changing the content of infoboxes of disputed cities an regions. It should be noted that this was the same reason why the es:Guayana Esequiba article in Spanish is currently fully protected.

I can also point out to my contributions to the 2023 Venezuelan referendum article, which aimed to justify the annexation of the region, both in English and in Spanish, expanding on the referendum's low turnout, the doubts about the official results and the actions taken afterwards. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, I was going to not reply in order to avoid bludgeoning, but your misrepresentations of your actions are just too blatant for me to ignore, so I'll try to keep it to a small list.

1. Yes, I have been involved in my fair share of inappropriate interactions in the past and this was disclosed in my first statement, but I have been doing my best to improve. The same cannot be said on your part and this can be clearly demonstrated in your editing history. Controversial topics are new to me (since around the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt, actually), while you began your editing in a controversial topic (Protests against Nicolás Maduro), have been involved in controversial political topics for almost ten years now and you still haven't rectified your edit warring/advocacy editing since sanctions were last placed on you four years ago. You definitely should be held to a higher standard and you are not meeting it.
2. Speaking of those specific sanctions, the ANI report opened after David Tornheim wrote:

   "Jamez42 (NoonIcarus) continues to delete large blocks of well-sourced text ... from United States involvement in regime change and in Latin America to the point of being disruptive. In particular, he keeps deleting material related to the U.S. efforts to support the ouster of Nicholas Maduro by the U.S. in support of Juan Guaidó"

   This simple explanation, along with some other information, was enough for Jusdafax and Number 57 to immediately support a topic ban on you. Well, even this specific behavior never changed and you continued to edit war on the same United States involvement in regime change article [96] and United States involvement in regime change in Latin America[97][98][99], removing information that was properly sourced.
3. While recognizing this is not Spanish Wikipedia, Ultranuevo and SOUTHCOM note that you have been engaged in edit warring on that project as well. This also occurred with the Guarimba article where I attempted to work with you and even admitted my own faults in our discussion thinking we were heading in the right direction. Then you began edit warring on the Spanish Guarimba article, falsely claiming that my addition was "original research" ("Investigación original") not once, but twice, before placing similar material back supporting your preferred version. (WP:Bad POV)
4. Finally, your misrepresentations and outright falsehoods need to stop. Regarding ANI#User:Elelch, they were warned about using IP socks and socks were a big problem in Peru articles for awhile. Yes, I was blocked on Spanish Wikipedia as I was new to controversial editing, but you were blocked for an even more prolonged period of time (initially 6 months, down to 2 months) for ownership behavior. As for the "olive branch" you extended to me; you inexplicably nominated an article I created for deletion the next day, though I still replied with skeptical hope. That hope has since been lost until there has been some concrete changes on your part.

Overall, I believe that people are redeemable and am hoping that a topic ban on political articles for NoonIcarus, though significant but not permanent, will be a motivation to improve their behavior on Wikipedia. They are a knowledgeable user, but they need to use their experience in a positive manner and not for civil POV pushing. WMrapids (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on political topics (1 year): As proposer. Please see initial rationale and reply.--WMrapids (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the broad topic-ban that is proposed here. The above wall of text demonstrates that the filing editor can write a wall of text. After two days, I have not seen the case that NoonIcarus should be topic-banned. Some sort of sanction is probably in order on one or both editors, but the case for a broad topic-ban has not been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Cinema of Egypt copyvios

I'm not sure where to go with this and the problems seem too deep for me to do it alone, but the Cinema of Egypt article is riddled with direct copyright violations going back months. Crimsonalfred2022 has been adding material since October and much of it appears to be copyright violations based on google translations of the articles used in the reference. I removed this section and this both are word for word what google translate says in the references themselves. I don't know how far back the edits go so I don't know how to make a revdel request for them. There are probably far more instances but this is beyond me to do alone. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that Crimsonalfred2022 was previously notified about copyright policy on 30 October 2023 ([100]). (Less urgently, also notified shortly after about copying within Wikipedia, [101].) R Prazeres (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

For complex copyright problems, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Use Template:Copyvio (you will need to subst:). The resulting template will include instructions for filing the report. -- Whpq (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the user's additions going back to December 20, as the amount of copyvio is too massive to stand. There's also numerous potentially copyright uploads (around 90 files) added to the Commons, many of which will need to be deleted, so I've posted at their administrator noticeboard that all their uploads need to be checked too. — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User conduct at Bangladesh genocide RfC and TBAN violation

I would like to know if the conduct of A.Musketeer and myself at Talk:Bangladesh genocide#RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide is appropriate or disruptive.

1. A.Musketeer has reverted my attempt to move what I think are pretty obviously !votes from the Discussion section to the Survey section. They didn't respond when I asked why they considered them "comments, not !votes".
2. A.Musketeer has accused me of canvassing by pinging all (unblocked) editors that participated in the last RfC about this article and has placed a canvassing tag on Volunteer Marek's !vote. I think that my pings were entirely appropriate and satisfy WP:APPNOTE, which states that I'm allowed to notify [e]ditors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. My pings were neutrally worded, I pinged all participants of the RfC (not a "selective" group), and I just placed my comment at the bottom of the RfC (is there a better location to place it?).
3. A.Musketeer has made a personal attack against me: Your desperation is becoming more and more visible, Malerisch.
4. A.Musketeer has accused me of making passive attempts to besmirch the opposing editors to be Hindu nationalists. A.Musketeer is referring to this comment and the second paragraph of my !vote, in which I quoted news articles and a scholarly journal. What is the correct way to quote these articles, if I did so inappropriately? I have not called any editor a "Hindu nationalist", and I think that I have been entirely civil towards the other editors on the talk page. On the other hand, A.Musketeer has made uncited claims that opposing their position (that Bengali Muslims were not the victims of genocide) is "genocide denial" (1, 2).

Lastly, while this is not directly related to this RfC, I believe that A.Musketeer violated their TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed, with this edit to 2024 Bangladeshi general election (Hasina was just re-elected). Malerisch (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI, TarnishedPath has removed the Discussion header to resolve the first dispute. Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish and El C about the TBAN. Malerisch (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Malerisch, generally a RfC closer will look at the discussion as well as !votes to gauge the strengths of arguments for and against proposals, so I don't think the placement really mattered too much. For the sake of resolving that specific dispute I decided to be bold and just make everything part of the "survey" section. I hope that is a suitable resolution. TarnishedPath^talk 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in—I don't have any issue with what you did. I'm aware that closers will read the whole discussion anyway, which is why I didn't force the issue. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know: A.Musketeer has been actively vandalizing contents related to the current geopolitical tensions in Bangladesh and Bangladesh Liberation War despite being not from Bangladesh (they contribute mostly in the India-related articles). A.Musketeer has been previously blocked for waging edit-wars and have been community banned from editing contents (TBAN) related to Sheikh Hasina. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

• To provide context on the "Hindu nationalist" labelling — User:Wiki.arfazhxss and his sockpuppets, who have the same position in this dispute as Malerisch, have been continuously attacking the opposing editors, (in this case User:Nomian and myself), to be Hindu nationalist/Hindutva/Hindu far-right for pointing out the Bengali Hindus as the target in the genocide. There have been some off-wiki coordination as well to extend the attack. [102]. Malerisch then further provoked the sentiments by quoting certain contents on India's Hindu nationalist politics in the discussion, unrelated to the article, and associating my position with them. He used the same tactic in the RfC by quoting one of those articles and mentioning me and my position in the dispute.
• On Canvassing: Instead of notifying the editors on their user talk pages, Malerisch placed the comment below that of Lionel Messi Lover who supports Malerisch's position in the RfC and was describing the mention of Bengali Hindus as "misinformation" and "misrepresentation". Unsurprisingly, this resulted in a !vote by Volunteer Marek like this one.
• I'm not sure how merely talking about a desperation is a personal attack when the user is literally going after every editor who is !voting for the opposite position, even trying to manipulate others to change into their preferred !vote.
• My comment on genocide denial is misquoted here. I was referring to the general denial of the fact that "Bengali Hindus were targeted in the genocide" without referring to any editor. I had already quoted different sources to support my position. No idea how is that a personal attack and against whom?
• On TBAN: I was banned from Sheikh Hasina but not Bangladesh in general, neither from Bangladeshi politics. My edit was to add a maintenance template to the article and had nothing to do with Sheikh Hasina. The election is not just about Hasina but also about the election of 299 other constituents. I don't see that as a violation although I'd be happy to revert myself if an admin clarifies otherwise.

A.Musketeer (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Considering that Shohure Jagoron wrote Agreed, there seems to be no indication that would disqualify one or the other, and so it’s most logical to leave it as “Bengalis” in the former Discussion section, I can hardly be accused of trying to "manipulate" their opinion when it was always Bengalis—I was just trying to get them to clarify their !vote. I have directly replied to just two other !votes: yours and 74.12.97.59's, which is a far cry from literally going after every editor who is !voting for the opposite position. I only replied to other conversations because I was explicitly pinged by another editor and asked to comment. Malerisch (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A.Musketeer has a long history of going against anyone who opposes their view. Malerisch is not the first editor A.Musketeer attacked, and will not be the last editor. Coordinated efforts of Nomian and A.Musketeer has vandalized ALL the articles on Bangladeshi Liberation War. 103.184.172.37 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the IP after an unacceptable personal attack. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, a lot has been going on at a similar page. Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You're repeatedly trying to archive an ongoing thread, I don't know why. These threads have raised concerns about the current state of the article. So archiving these manually, even when the last comment was just 20 days ago, is a disruption in the conversion. Please refrain from doing these. Salekin.sami36 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging editors just because they were pinged and didn't !vote you want them to, when there is no indication they were pinged because of their views, is kind of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Especially tagging people who had edited in this topic area going back a decade or so. So I think at least on that account User:Malerisch has a point about User:A.Musketeer. Volunteer Marek 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• A demonstration of the off-wiki coordination is there for everyone to see I guess. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • What in the world are you talking about? Volunteer Marek 07:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

    Musketeer is just accusing entire Bangladeshi editors at this point. This editor should be community-banned from ever editing any topic related to Bangladesh. 45.248.151.129 (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Note: WP:SOCKSTRIKE

TBAN

Can an admin either enforce the TBAN or leave a comment as to why they believe that editing an article that mentions Hasina 24 times (not including references), has Hasina's picture in the infobox, is linked in Template:Sheikh Hasina sidebar, and is being proposed at ITN/C with Hasina's photo and a blurb that names Hasina, doesn't constitute a violation of a TBAN from Sheikh Hasina, broadly construed? Malerisch (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Admins in this forum are taking you seriously, Malerisch 88.239.17.21 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Your repeated pushing to enforce a false TBAN wouldn't change the fact that my edit to add a maintenance template had nothing to do with Sheikh Hasina but rather a standard procedure on an article about a nationally significant event in Bangladesh.
  I would also request the admins to take a closer look at the off-wiki coordination going on by these IP users and new accounts who are following Malerisch's lead in every page related to this dispute. A.Musketeer (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  A.Musketeer, it's a clear violation of your topic ban, and if it happens again you'll be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Destructive Edits of A.Musketeer in a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

I would like to know whether A.Musketeer's edits in a Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War Vandalism, Destructive or not.

A.Musketeer is also involved in "User conduct at Bangladesh Genocide Rfc and TBAN". After trying my best to have a discussion with him in the talk page to which he replied with constant whataboutism. So I felt it's pointless to argue further have recorded his vandalism in the article. Please take a look in the article and talk page, you'll understand the situation better.I

Here is the reply i gave in the talk page, here "you" is referring A.Musketeer.

== "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." ==

It is your claim in the 2nd edit. You've deleted 5 sources some of them directly contradicts with the claim. Among the removed "Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …" in Against our will, In NY Times which quoted Susan Brownmiler and quoted, "....“Women’s 1971,” will be published. This gathers the testimonies of women who were not just victims, .... Of the 19 women whose stories appear in this collection, 15 are Muslims, 2 are Hindus and 2 are Buddhists." and in The Daily Star "Targeting a specific group? Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point."

You've deleted these at your 1st edit also failed to mention why you were removing these sources. And in your 2nd edit you added the claim without source and without any edit description of this claim. Also, you've grossly misinterpreted the source you've given.

The source statement was,

Hindus were targeted the most

Your claim back by source is,

Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.

I've already proven my point in the upper section. Also, Malerisch gave some points about the source in a comment.

You were using Christian Gerlach's to refute my argument, his statement is,

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions.

In Against our will by Susan Brownmiller which Cited by 12314,

“… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. … Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land …” p.80

In The Daily Star archive

Article 2(b) of the UN CPPCG declares that the intent to destroy must be directed against one of the four groups; national, racial, ethnical or religious. ... Firstly, Bengalis as a national group and secondly, quite a number of victims being the members of a particular ethnical / religious group- that is the head counts being Hindus primarily substantiate my point. ... The 'Bengalis' constitute a national group whose nationalism is rooted in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal which developed well mainly in the first half of the twentieth century. Though, in 1947 India fragmented into two parts on the basis of religion, common Muslim population of East Pakistan mainly believed in belonging as 'Bengali' not as 'Muslims'.

Firstly, you're grossly misinterpreting from the source. You've removed source material to add your pov, You're reverting sourced material which refutes your claim with talking nonsense.

Also the only source you were backing your misinterpreted claim on, and discrediting all others sources (books, journals, newspapers) has Cited by 43⁽¹⁾ in google scholar, Against our will is Cited by 12314^{(About 7,370,000 results)}, Extremely violent societies of Christian Gerlach is Cited by 410.^{(About 2,060,000 results)}

You've made 22 edits most of them are destructive.

• On your first edit your edit description was "original research and misinterpretation of sources removed" You've removed 5 Quoted sources^{(none original or primary: banglapedia, Against our will, NY Times, thedailystar,Siddiqi1998p209)} which seems to imply Bengali women were raped irrespective of religion. No new source added.
• On your 2nd edit ^{edit description:"misinterpretation of sources removed"} :You've added the Disputed statement "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." with no source to back it up.
• On your 3rd edit ^{edit description:"NPOV balancing, the major features of the rape should be prioritized than minor ones" :} You've replaced "Bengali Muslim women who were perceived to be under the Hindu influence were impregnated by force in order to create "pure" Muslims." with "The Pakistani elite believed that Hindus were behind the revolt and that as soon as there was a solution to the "Hindu problem" the conflict would resolve." And you edit description was NPOV balancing. You've deleted an neutral sentence and added your POV, this is Civil POV pushing.
• On your 5th edit you've reverted a revert by Pravega(description:No Consensus-15/12/21) which restored the revision before your first edit / reverted your edits. Your revert comment was "do not misinterpret sources and make original research" It is was you who were doing original research - "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." still no source to back it up. So no misinterpretion ig.
• On your 6th edit: You added source to the claim ""Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women." but the source says "Hindus were targeted the most" It is very obvious misinterpretion of source. Targeted the most means they were specially targeted, it doesn't mean Most of the victim were Hindu Women. Malerisch already written about in the talk page in 18/12/23, but you've not defended it yet, while you reverted my edit in this article and told not to change anything before Consensus!!. In the meantime, i've worked tirelessly 3 days gathering multiple sources for each statement I've added. I've also extensively commented on each edit. I even added reference about my citation, which is totally overkill.You were given plenty of time to explain to discuss which you didb't do, so reverting your edit was vaild but i didn't revert your original edits instead worked on them. You've reverted my edit saying "Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician." But what about the academia.edu journal and newyork times reference, which backs up the same statement? Also you stated "you are adding primary sources, Dr Jahangeer Haider is a Government of Bangladesh-personnel" so even his journal entry in United States National Library of Medicine is primary source? What you're doing is Subtle vandalism.
• ...

=== Others ===

You're misinterpreting a source and not defending it(@Malerisch comments) instead reverting statement which has multiple reference.

You were referring Christian Gerlach in your previous reply. His statement directly contradicts with your claim: "Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women."

Women of all ages and social backgrounds, urban and rural, were affected, but it is unclear in which proportions. Christian Gerlach, Chapter 4: From rivalries between elites to a crisis of society: Mass violence and famine in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), 1971–77, Extremely Violent Societies (2010)

2.Your Claim : @Susan Brownmiller doesn't have any credentials as an academician.

• In Google Scholar the Against our will: Men, women, and rape, S Brownmiller - 1993 - Ballantine Books ,Cited by 12314 scholars. Semantic Scholar has 1,591 Citations.
• Your misinterpreted source is (Modern Genocide [4 volumes]: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection [4 volumes]) Cited by 43 as opposed to 12314 of Brownmiler and in the Semantic Scholar: no result but searching for the authors did give 19,600 results and Susan Brownmiler's gave 960,000. I'm just walking on your logic not commenting anything about the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salekin.sami36 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Incivility by EEng

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

---

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

I believe that it's necessary to open a thread to report recent incivility by EEng. I came across incivil comments made by them on the 1st January, and left a message on their talk page to that effect (user talk thread: Special:Permalink/1193451579#Incivility). I have come across further incivil comments they have made since then, so I am now opening a thread on the matter at AN/I as I do not know what else to do, and I do not wish to ignore the incivility.

The initial incivil comments I noticed made by EEng recently were in an AN/I discussion (archived here) regarding a close on Talk:Self-referential humor. They included an aggressive response to Voorts (CONSENSUS? Are you fucking kidding? [diff]), as well as attempts to put down editors based on perceived differences in experience (And as an inexperienced editor, you need to stop playing eager beaver and closing discussion's on issues you don't understand. You're not going to get to be an admin this way, trust me. [diff]; Thanks for telling me what ANI is for, editor-with-literally-one-fifteenth-the-experience-I-have! [diff]) and defending their own incivility (No reason [to get aggressive] other than that you're continuing to waste a lot of people's time. [diff]). {{subst:#invoke:String|match|they|%A*}}{{subst:uc:{{subst:#invoke:String|sub|{{subst:#invoke:String|match|they|%a.*}}|1|1}}}}{{subst:#invoke:String|sub|{{subst:#invoke:String|match|they|%a.*}}|2}} also commented in a thread at Wikipedia talk:Closure requests, in which they put down Voorts for requesting a peer review of their close (In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, will you get a clue and stop beating this dead horse? Find something useful to do and stop wasting people's time in your endless search for approbation for what you've been told over and over was a huge boner on your part. [diff]). In addition, they replied in an incivil manner to a message left on their user talk page from DIYeditor regarding talk page reply formatting (Thanks, but with my 33,000 talk-page contributions to your 3,000, I don't need any schooling from you on how to do stuff, nor am I cowed by lame complaints about broken screenreaders from the 1990s. You misrepresented my views and I responded as I saw fit. Don't ever fuck with my posts again. [diff]).

The most recent incivil comments by EEng - and the ones which prompted me to open this thread - were on Kanashimi's talk page, in a thread regarding Cewbot (Or, instead of telling 10,000 other editors to do something, you can stop flooding watchlists. Now you've really pissed me off. What the fuck is the urgency of this fiddling with article assessments? [diff]; Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles (i.e. not those who invest their time gnoming template whitespace) do want to see bot edits, because bot edits can and do often screw things up. That's why we turn off suppression of bot edits. [...] If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that. [diff]).

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

trying to police cursing on wikipedia isn't going to work out, many have tried in the past.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

And trying to curse police EEng is about as productive as tilting at windmills. A smart kitten, this won’t boomerang but it also won’t go anywhere; I suggest you withdraw it and save a lot of time. BilledMammal (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the problems is, I can't imagine this sort of incivility being tolerated from an average Wikipedia editor (and almost certainly not a new one). From my perspective, incivility such as this is actively harmful to the project - for one thing, it has the potential to drive away other editors - and failure to take action in response to it risks entrenching a toxic culture. While I appreciate your suggestion,^/gen I don't wish to withdraw this filing. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We have policies against personal attacks for a reason. Users shouldn't have a special WP:UNBLOCKABLE status based on their amount of contributions, and asking editors to withdraw their reports because of this only contributes to the issue. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, that went an unexpected and novel direction. BilledMammal (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(Without deep analysis) @EEng sounds like a very nice person. A definite warning here (if not a block). Struck: controversial statement by me, I'm going to refrain from posting here for a while. Still indicated my vote later in the debate.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely you realize that your facetious remark about EEng is a personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lepricavark see user @Cremastras comment before making any more accusations. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra has no more pull here than anyone else. The fact that EEng is here for uncivil ad hominem sarcasm and you think a warning or block is in order and choose to express this with uncivil ad hominem sarcasm is almost unbearably ironic and farcical, so Lepricavark is absolutely correct to call you on it (even if "personal attack" is a stretch; people love to bandy that phrase around, but it has a pretty specific definition which is not the same as "uncivil" or the policies would just be merged).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I see it as a personal attack because ASmallMapleLeaf is implying that EENg is not, in fact, a very nice person, and that seems like a personal remark. At any rate, it's certainly an interesting choice for an ostensibly brand-new editor to be hanging out at the dramaboards. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish Did you miss the 'without deep research' portion of my comment? I believed he was another WP:NOTHERE account before checking block logs after making this comment, which should be quite telling of his behavior described here (Cremastra hadn't made a comment before I made mine, I was confused about the length of the thread when I logged back on).

As for me being uncivil and 'laughable' I actually published it knowing another edited at ANI had said it, rephrased :

• What a nice individual. Certainly should be indeffed and email privileges removed. –@Davey2010Talk 20:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC).

I suggest you strike your comment, I believe mine still stands as criticising the behaviour that brought this article in the first place, from a unique prospective that this was a new user. An obviously misinformed view, but a view that nonetheless relevant to someone with a long block log. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The reply was posted at this users ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yilian_Wong ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your comment was about the person. You said nothing about behavior at all. The fact that you didn't do enough research before weighing in makes your comment worse, not better. You are at least the second editor who has criticized EEng for incivility yet doubles down on their own incivility. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not being incivil in the slightest from my POV, you seem be ignoring points made by me. You say I'm criticising him as a person. No I'm very clearly criticising his comments that were presented here by the user who reported him. Unless you consider comments from EEng such as "Now you've really pissed me off. What the fuck is the urgency of this fiddling with article assessments?" to be, indeed, civil. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You facetiously wrote EEng sounds like a very nice person. That's very clearly criticism of him as a person. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

"sounded" based off the comments brought up here. It's criticising the comments as uncivil. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that swearing isn't the problem here, it's the aggressive attitude. Some kind of response is warranted.🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What we need is some more detailed rules about running these sort of jobs. Kanashimi has done well by marking edits as bot and minor, and including a description of what the bot is doing. I don't want to hide bot edits because I am tracking problems with Cewbot. (Now resolved - touch wood.) EEng made a pretty reasonable request: given that the issue is pretty insignificant, the daily number of bot edits could be decreased to reduce the pressure on watchlists, and allow for some issues to be resolved with fewer mass reverts. The response from MSGJ was unsympathetic, hence EEng escalating. I escalated my own issue when I didn't get the expected response, perhaps unnecessarily. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion can be seen at User talk:Kanashimi#Stop flooding watchlists, please where EEng asks "Please slow it down. No hurry." That is a perfect request. The underlying issue appears to be that Cewbot is updating article talk page headers and apparently there will be around 4 million more just for {{WPBS}}. As usual, there are two camps: those who maintain articles and want to see related activity, and those that adjust talk headers. Both groups are important but getting the other side disqualified because they use strong language when faced with waffle is not going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. EEng's comments can't be waved away. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I don't mean to take a position regarding how fast/slow the bot tasks should run. I opened this thread because of the recent incivility displayed by EEng (not just in the discussion regarding bots), not intending to attempt to disqualify any side in that conversation. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 23:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, that's true, but when the scope of the task is every talk page ever (per community consensus to change the way article assessments work) it's going to be a bit spammy unless you want it to take twenty years. It's already running quite slowly for the scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You were firm but polite. EEng was rude and insulting to two separate editors. Nothing Qwerfjkl or MSGJ said warranted being cursed out or called incompetent. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• While I don't expect it to stick, I've blocked EEng for a period of 72h for a pattern of incivility towards other editors. While individually those replies would at most merit a warning, put together they show a considerable lack of respect towards other editors, as well as a lack of WP:AGF. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  “While I don't expect it to stick, I've blocked…”

  Is that a pre-declared block against consensus? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  As others have observed before – EEng is unblockable. Someone will likely unblock him shortly for some arcane reason, when, frankly, he should be blocked for several months for his continuous flagrant violations of incivility 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  The block was done as an individual admin's action, no consensus is strictly required. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  True, but, I read you as implying that you thought the block would be found to be against consensus. Now, I read it as being politely tentative, seeing the !votes below showing that it will stick. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: EEng made this comment, asking it be copied over to ANI. I think that's not unreasonable.

  I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously.
  After the bot operator was repeatedly asked to slow the thing down, and David Eppstein specifically explained why hiding all bot edits wasn't a feasible solution [242], these two geniuses showed up to high-handedly smirk to each other about how dumb David and I are for not realizing we had unhidden all bot edits [243]. So while some might think me uncivil, at least I'm not uncivil and clueless -- a deadly combination

  🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, how nice. He will return to continue to personally attack people based on minor disagreements and none of us will have any recourse because he has a high edit count which means he can say and do things that are blatantly cruel to people, without any regard for the rules 'lesser' accounts are subject to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

   Comment: EEng has responded further on their talk page, I'm posting this here to clear up any confusion stemming from the previous comment.

  You completely misunderstand. I have no desire to be blocked, but I got over being ashamed of blocks long ago since, as everyone knows, a block only requires that one trigger-happy admin get high and mighty over something that others aren't exercised about. I'll admit that in this particular case I went from 0 to 100 pretty fast, but (as described above) being lectured a couple of script kiddies two editors who didn't bother to even read the thread so far (David Eppstein's point in particular -- which he's now reiterated, BTW [244]) does bring out the worst in me. EEng 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly? Acting like he doesn't care about blocks shows why, fundamentally, a 72-hour block is insufficient: he won't learn from his behavior, especially since this same behavior would have gotten "lesser" editors permanently blocked a long time ago. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. He continues to stand by his behaviour and dismisses blocks as being from rogue admins. This person is not going to change when he comes back. JM (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The original comment above was edited by the user (dif), and I've brought over the removed and inserted text to reflect the changes. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block with the hope that EEng returns to editing with a more collaborative attitude. Some of the comments are borderline but Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles ... is way over the WP:NPA line when conversing with bot operators carrying out a task that is supported by the community. EEng, you can do better. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Given their extensive block log, however, I doubt this'll change their behaviour. Given their response to the block (I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously.), I would support extending the block until EEng can make a commitment to be actually civil. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Good block. There will be an unblock with a finger wag and we'll be back here again in the circle of EEng, but this conduct has gone beyond their normal level of "I can say what I want, no one will block me." Star Mississippi 23:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Good block. I think Ingenuity makes a reasonable point, and if someone wants to extend the block I would support that as well. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Having had time to think on it, I would also support indef, based mostly on the people opposing such an action. It's fine that GoodDay (to take one example) doesn't mind getting insulted on the regular, but that's not scalable and certainly not the kind of project I want to participate in. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Endorse block; propose extension: besides EEng's long pattern of incivility, they have failed to actually commit to following Wikipedia's policies, as noted by Ingenuity above. This is not a minor problem.

Either

1. Block EEng indefinitely from the project to prevent further attacks, as an extension of this block; or
2. Give EEng I trial run of two months or so (after this block expires). If they can make and uphold a commitment to be civil for that time, well and good. Otherwise, block them indefinitely from the project to prevent further attacks.

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• A Good block...for as long as it lasts and for all the good it will do. "if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job".[103] DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Good block, support extension. On top of the incivility, their attitude, especially towards newer editors, shows a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and isn't a productive way to go about. Again, a user's edit count or celebrity shouldn't bring about an "unblockable" status. Letting this slide once again only reinforces the attitude of "they can say whatever they want without risking anything". ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would support an indefinite block, with the caveat that "indefinite" doesn't and shouldn't mean "forever". In this case, it should be until EEng shows a willingness to reform, and a genuine, good-faith appeal should be considered by either administrators or the community. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 16:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Extend the block indefinitely. Given EEng's block log, I do not believe a 72 hour block is enough. Furthermore, their comment that "if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job" suggests that they have no intention of changing their attitude. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I support a site ban; it's no secret that EEng is an "unblockable", and a site ban is really the only solution to dealing with their repeated incivility. SkyWarrior 00:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't know if I'm meant to comment here given I opened the thread, but for the avoidance of doubt regarding my position, I would support a site ban for the same reasons as SkyWarrior, extend block to indefinite as second choice. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wanted to add something more here to properly expand on the reasons for my view/!vote; however (due to my own personal stress levels & general difficulty in being able to put things into words), when I tried, I found that I wasn't able to write much very well right now, for which I apologise.

  However, I have been reading the comments that have been made while this thread has been open, and I just wanted to note that my position is also per what's been said by Apaugasma, Ivanvector, SergeWoodzing, Thebiguglyalien, Ravenswing & others. At this point, given all of what's been said & what I've read, I believe that a siteban/indef is a measure necessary to prevent further incivility from EEng, and to prevent further harm to the project resulting from such. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra You might want to consider taking a step back from this topic for a few hours. It seems to have been lost on you that when you told EEng to stop being a jerk, you ignored the advice in that very essay to not call people jerks. I think you've made your point, and your comments on EEng's talk page seem to make more heat than light. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support extended block until EEng shows any indication that he understands why these kinds of comments are inappropriate. I do not support a siteban. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, obviously. EEng is Wikipedia's self-appointed court jester; nobody asked him to be, nobody thinks a court jester is a good idea on a project that values collaboration and civility, and various editors keep asking him to stop, but he won't. He never sees any kind of real consequence other than the occasional definite block that he's more than happy to sit out since it means he never has to modify his behaviour, and there's a small group of editors that cheer him on and always an admin who will invent a rationale to unblock, so why would he ever improve? Nothing will change unless and until EEng sees real consequences, but I've been around long enough to know that enough of his friends will turn up to prevent it from happening, so I'm not about to bother proposing it myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Supporting EEng, because when you shake Wikipedia up a bit you find that he's one of its most productive, social, and interesting editors. 72 hours has a nice ring to it, and the minutes will go by like seconds. But any more than that has a "Blood in the water, come on, over here over here" feel to it, and Wikipedians should be better than that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  And then he'll do it again, and again, and again. He's productive and clearly means well but he also has absolutely no regard to being civil and communicating properly, because this community has let him do whatever he wanted for years without meaningful reprisal, so he has had absolutely no incentive to change anything. Maybe actually hold him accountable for once and he'll change his behavior, or maybe not, but it's better than nothing.

  There's really no reason to let this stand when this has happened before and he shows no sign it will not happen again. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't spoken personally to EEng yet, but from what I've read, I think it's fair to say he is all of the good things people have to say about him, but at the same time it's also clear he has a pattern of egregious behavior in certain situations that people have a right to be upset about. I agree: I think the behavior should be addressed, but we shouldn't lose sight one way or the other. 72 seems fine for this. Remsense留 01:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The real problem I have with this thesis is the idea that some editors are irreplaceable, therefore we should tolerate some amount of otherwise unacceptable behavior. That's not a sustainable way to run a project; it's terrible for the retention of newer editors. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's an ongoing phenonemon that long-established editors considered "productive" bite the newcomers and get away with a lot more despite the fact that they should know the rules better than newcomers. JM (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Being "productive, social and interesting" doesn't grant anyone the right to not follow basic civility like WP:NPA. We don't give rights to Wikipedians based on how "interesting" we find them. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  He also wasn't being "productive, social and interesting" when he repeatedly insulted me. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  If the minutes will go by like seconds, then it needs to be extended, because he'll only have to wait "seconds" to resume the behaviour. JM (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

•  EEng's reply, copied from their talk page: I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to visit me here in my holding cell, and to show my good faith I've modified my post per your suggestion. But let me explain a little. I'm a technical person myself, and many were the years during which my technical prowess put me in a position where the quality of people's lives was very much in my hands. And one thing I always despised was a high-handed attitude, on the part of some of my technical colleagues, toward people not as in-the-know as they were. And that's the attitude I detected in that discussion when those two presumed to inform me (a computer scientist and systems engineer for 45 years) and David Eppstein (a professor of computer science) that the flooding of our watchlists was somehow our fault, because we'd overridden the option to hid bots edits -- like we didn't know what we were doing or something. That fact is, they don't know what they were doing, because if they did they'd have realized they need to run that bot task in some different way to avoid much annoyance to many people. So I blew my stack a bit. To be honest I thought better of it just after hitting [Publish changes], but just then the dog vomited on the rug so my priorities suddenly shifted. EEng 00:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC) -- Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This comment was made in reply to my suggestion, here, which they complied with, here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@EEng I'm going to try and put in my first cents to an ANI discussion here: You and David are two people who think that the bot should be slower for all users, while 3 or 4 other people think that you should just put down the smart watchlist script (which David hasn't replied to; in fact they just left a single comment and then get swept up in this huge discussion... gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber). There hasn't been anyone else who believes that the bot should slow down for everyone instead of prospective editors filtering it out individually. Not to mention that every comment except maybe the word "gee" was perfectly civil, and I don't see this holier-than-thou attitude you describe when I try to put myself in your shoes. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact I have replied stating that telling us to ignore what the bots do and pretending they're always correct is not an acceptable response. So telling me "just use this script and you can pretend that the bots aren't screwing up all our content while you don't watch" is non-responsive and does not need me to dignify it by a reply.

As for "gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber": This sort of language is an uncivil personal attack, at least at the same level at which we are defining EEng's comments on the bot talk page as being an uncivil personal attack. It is ironic seeing such language on a comment thread about incivility on ANI. Retract and apologize, please. (And for your information, I am on a fairly normal Pacific time schedule. As I post this it is currently late afternoon / early evening.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you see gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber as an "uncivil personal attack"? The way I read it, he's saying that he thinks it is going to be shocking for you to wake up to a huge discussion like this out of nowhere. The idea that such a comment is somehow not only an uncivil personal attack, but on the level of Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles... makes no sense to me. JM (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Apologies if that offended you, but I don't think it's anywhere near EEng's sudden attacks after three or four civil replies from others.

Every single task of Cewbot is approved by community consensus; I don't see why you think that it'd be screwing over articles, especially since the only edits it does in main/talkspace are fixing broken anchors, in which the worst case would either be easily spotted or not affect anything at all. Ordering them to slow it down would not solve any of the problems said. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The other bots that I follow are also approved by community consensus. Often they do good things. Occasionally they do bad things. If unwatched, despite being rare, the bad things pile up. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn’t cleaning them after piling up have the same effect? If it were slower, the bot will only suddenly mass-“attack” pages every, say, half hour, which doesn’t seem like it’ll clean up the watchlist much either. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, "I'm sorry you took it the wrong way but I don't think I did anything wrong" is neither a retraction nor an apology. It was a personal attack on my level of awareness, and you are demonstrating the same sort of insistence that it was somehow a justified personal attack that has already gotten EEng blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think it's a personal attack, so he can have a better idea of what you have a problem with? JM (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I read "gonna be a shock after he arises from his slumber" as implying that David would be surprised when he logged back on (with "his slumber" not referring to his personal mental state, but to literally being afk) to find that a discussion he was involved in had erupted into an AN/I thread. I'm not sure how that's a personal attack. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That's how I read it as well, as I said above. I don't see how this can be construed as a personal attack. I've seen admins express surprise at threads exploding before after returning from a short period of inactivity. JM (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant “I’m sorry, I think I shouldn’t have said that. However, I don’t think that was on the same level of frustration or hostility as EEng's comments.” Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Half the time I don't know whether EEng is serious; the other half I don't know if they're kidding.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  EEng's explanation seems fine, and because he thought better of it upon hitting "publish" and has since changed the wording shows awareness of the situation. EEng speaks and writes in honest language, a rare treat on Wikipedia, and asking for full conformity to robothood seems to be more an urge to tame than to let wild things run free. Each person has their own personality (it's literally in the word), and it's from that personality that a volunteer spirit emerges that blends well with the concept and creation of Wikipedia. EEng has contributed much, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Again, editors who have the personality to pile on when they see a wounded creature have their place in Wikipedia as well, but not at the expense of harming the project. 72 hours in the penalty box has its adherents, and maybe next time he'll leave the dog puke on the floor for an extra minute and change the edit that he sensed he should have changed just as he sent it. We've all been there, throw the first stone, whiffleball pitching at the Moon, but please, as Wikipedians, think twice about the tendency to pile on and realize that "assume good faith" goes in all directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's a difference between "full conformity to robothood" and just having the smallest amount of civility required to work on a project. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Each person has their own personality is not an excuse to insult other people at random. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block and extend indefinitely per above, particularly SkyWarrior, C.E., and Cremastra. Also this, where the user states I always figure that if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously. Also, the topic of "unblockables" has come up, I'll say that I think the very existence of unblockables damages the site because of the amount of damage an unblockable user can do, regardless of any of their beneficial actions. I've also had enough of people who refuse to compromise or back down until they've actually been blocked. JM (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, support siteban so that a single admin can't come along and negate all this. JM (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I think that's a little too harsh. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block, neutral indef per Randy. They seem cooperative to us for the time being, and I don't see much more harm that could be done if the block were temporary instead of indef; though maybe we should extend the block until we sort this out because of EEng's comments, the former of which is apparently what an indef is? Which is why I'm neutral as to indef. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. As someone who is, on a regular basis, accused of being an apologist for EEng, I'm going to (1) say to EEng here that he should get down off his high horse, and not be so full of himself, and while he's at it, try to be kinder to other editors, and (2) tell those who keep thinking that EEng is unblockable because he has enablers to (after looking at his block log, hint, hint) take a look at User talk:Tryptofish#Your wiki-friend, where it emerges that I have been telling EEng this for a very long time. As for all this voting on the block, I'm going to say something that I hope is more nuanced. The block was within process, and it certainly adds to a long list of evidence that EEng is anything but unblockable, but it was also not particularly helpful. These kinds of I'm an administrator, and I'm going to take a stand for civility by adding yet another block to an established editor's block log blocks are, frankly, performative. I haven't got the faintest idea what anyone thinks it's going to "prevent". And this brings me to what I think of those editors who are saying here that the block should be extended to indefinite. I recognize that this is coming from a sincere place, and I get it, that it makes Wikipedia less enjoyable when users feel that they have been disrespected. But it's appropriate to weigh the plusses against the minuses. Language about editors being "net positives" or "net negatives" is kind of yucky, in the way that it reduces real people to mere ratios. But EEng is a net positive (as, alas, he will likely tell you, himself). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) About "if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job", I hope that editors can tell the difference between not caring about Wikipedia, and venting after being blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: One reason such language is, as you said, "yucky" is because once we decide a person is a net positive, we're implicitly letting them break the rules just as long as they stay in the black, so to speak. We never have to have such conversations about the many, many premium editors who contribute just as well as the best of EEng while rarely/never causing this kind of drama. When it comes to deciding whether EEng is or is not a net positive, do you take into account how much time is wasted on stuff like this? That he persists in calling other users assholes or whatever takes away from his status as a net positive. That those users frequently start threads like this, ones that always stretch on for miles and never accomplish anything conclusive, also takes away from his status as a net positive, doesn't it? It would be so, so easy for him to contribute to this website while not violating policy so much and so often that he instigates the creation of timesinks like this all the time. Countless editors do just that. The fact that he refuses contributes to the very widespread belief that he does more harm than good, and his most ardent supporters really ought to agree on that.

For that matter, shouldn't apologists/"apologists" like you want him to be blocked indefinitely? He'd be able to get an indef reversed in 30 seconds because all he'd need to do is bang out a quick note explaining what he did wrong and promising not to do it again. Then he'd join the ranks of editors who make as many positive contributions as he does without ever dealing with threads like this. City of Silver 02:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel that your reply to me is glib. When I pointed out the flaws in calling an editor a net positive or negative, I was clearly talking about how we shouldn't reduce real people, with all their complexities, to a simple ratio. That you would try to turn that into what you said here shows that you ignored what I actually said. And I find that your reference to what almost amounts to "people like you" frankly insulting, which is a strange way to stand up for civility. Of course I don't want him to be indeffed. That should be obvious. You are of course talking about a real problem, insofar as the time wasted by ANI threads like this one. This is why I acknowledged the sincerity of editors who feel hurt by things EEng has said; it's also why I said that the block was unhelpful. I wrote WP:DEFARGE about this sort of thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: (googles ""define glib" just so I'm sure) No, I promise you, I truly meant what I said. I know you don't want EEng indeffed and I never said any different. What I'm saying is, I'm genuinely bewildered by that. I believe he'd file a successful appeal so fast he wouldn't even have to wait out the 68 or so hours he's got left on this block. You want EEng to keep editing here. You want his undeniably good contributions to continue. If he gets indeffed, you'll get what you want and as a bonus, the community won't have to endure threads like this any more. How on earth is this not a worthy outcome? City of Silver 03:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Re City of Silver's shouldn't apologists/"apologists" like you want him to be blocked indefinitely?: Some people have the integrity/stubbornness (call it what you will) to refuse to apologize when they don't believe they are in the wrong. I strongly suspect that EEng is in this camp, and that if this block is made indefinite (on the principle that the integrity of the encyclopedia requires an apology) there is a good chance that it will become permanent, because if you force it to become a test of wills then that's what it will become.

The question you need to be asking yourself is, would you rather participate in a project where some otherwise-productive people who occasionally get frustrated and use mild intemperate language get de facto permablocked in this way, and the only long-term participants are the few genuine saints who never get frustrated and those other people willing to make an insincere apology, or a project where some people evade "punishment" by being allowed to continue to participate after such outbursts? Keep in mind also that blocks are only supposed to be used to protect the integrity of the project, not to punish the deserving. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I believe that describing rhetoric like "you two fucking geniuses" as "mild intemperate language" is completely apart from reality. That isn't exactly a response to your question (after all, as you said it's one that I should be asking myself, and I'm not up for the ten millionth debate about how hostile EEng's remarks are or are not) but if you don't know where I'd stand on this, say so and I'll explicitly tell.

I actually agree that your question holds a lot of validity but that would be tied up in EEng's response to it, not mine. "Is the community really at risk of losing you entirely if your behavior is restricted how the people complaining about you want it to be?" I genuinely, sincerely don't believe he'd leave here. At the risk of being a pest, I'd like to know why you think differently. City of Silver 03:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I believe that describing it as anything more than "mild intemperate language" is completely apart from reality. But you're welcome to your beliefs, as long as acting on them does not damage the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't find EEng's comments particularly offensive. Frustrated, perhaps. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Same here. I think this is rather subcultural. Lots of us use such langage all the time in daily life, and others think it's beyond the pale. While I've learned to hardly ever do it myself on here (because the community leans in a disapproving direction on this), it was a learning curve. And it necessarily had to be, because the community standards in this regard have palpably shifted slowly over time. Even in the early 2010s, this ANI probably would have closed quickly with a bunch of eye-rolling about over-sensitivity. We swore at each other a lot more back then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish I disagree. We all use language in different places as context demands. That's normal. EEng has edited here for over fifteen years. He's decided that this is how he speaks on Wikipedia. In 2006, my own use of Fuck you toward another user, on this very noticeboard, led to immediate pushback, although then, as now, people were prepared to defend it. It's here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive136#Proposing community impatience ban for Freestylefrappe. That was a long time ago, but I note four things: (1) Reading the whole discussion from the vantage point of 2024, I'm embarrassed; (2) I never did that again; (3) I apologized to the person I attacked; and (4) even then, the project was grappling with the problem of senior editors who overstep reasonable limits. The arguments defending the latter haven't really changed much over time. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind that fuck you is very different from what happened in this case. I'm not supporting the language used but it was different. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and users have gotten way with "fuck you" in recent memory anyway. "You two fucking geniuses" is clearly not civil, but it's kind of a sitcom-style "antagonistic humor" approach suggesting the writer thinks the recipients are doing something boneheaded and means to get that point across. In a previous era it might have come out as "you two knuckleheads". Constructive? No. Likely to offend? Yes. An actual attack? No. If had been something much more direct like "you two fucking morons" I would agree that it was one (see the subthread below about City of Silver for an actual personal attack about someone's mental capacities, which was doubled-down on). Something like "you two need to go fuck yourselves" would be in the middle (being neither a sarcasto-humorous jibe nor a personal attack but just raw hostility).

I have several more issues with the pillorying here, aside from this WP:CIVIL != WP:NPA one:

1. EEng has had several years now of incident-free editing (nothing of note since 2021), but this is being treated as if he was in here and sanctioned just last week. If someone has a comparatively minor melt-down every few years, that is generally something the community can live with.
2. His ANI trackrecord has been distorted/exaggerated, since being brought to ANI but not sanctioned in a proceeding is not evidence of wrongdoing. (EEng has been sanctioned before, but not every noticeboarding shows consensus that he was in the wrong.) Nor does the community intend to use evidence from a long time ago as a permanent "scarlet letter" in behaviorial-lapse matters like this. (It's actually pertinent when there's a WP:NOTHERE problem, like pushing a fringe or neo-Nazi or other "warp the content to my PoV" agenda; people with civility issues tend to improve over time even if still suffering an occasional lapse, but someone who is here to promote a conspiracy theory or whatever is never going to "improve" even if they futz around quasi-productively in some other topics for a while as a smokescreen before returning to their real purpose.)
3. The fact that some people have a rather irrational overreaction to "strong language" automatically inspires a hangin' judge reaction from them: they are both more likely to comment and much more likely to favor excessive sanctions than someone not triggered by those particular text strings; this is a strong selection bias, on top of the already observable one that anyone in favor of a negative action is more likely to comment here than someone who is not.
4. EEng has difficulty resisting the urge to try to be funny, often in a sarcastic direction (sometimes in ways that take multiple reads to get the full point), and also has a tendency toward deflection as self-defense; these habits are frequently misinterpreted as recalitrance, lack of understanding, or dismissiveness, and there is a great deal of that misinterpretation and outright recasting of his comments to mean whatever the angry respondent here wishes they meant (more on that below). There is a big difference between implication and inference, but it is being ignored with impunity in this thread.
5. It is not possible for someone to simultaneously be an "unblockable" that admins and old hands are supposedly protecting at all costs (i.e. someone we should dogpile on) and yet also have a non-trivial block and other sanctions log (i.e. someone we should dogpile on). That's cognitively dissonant bullshit and just a means of trying to reach a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" result. (I guess now I'll be put up for a ban too, for daring to use a "swear-word" in the course of being critical of some people's arguments.)
6. Below, EEng's own statements are being mis-cast, with the claim that he "requested" an indef; what he really indicated was that he was sorry for the community trouble he'd caused, and that it would be more productive to block him than continue debating it in ANI, and that he'd make an unblock request after some time had passed. [104] This is by no means a "just block me forever, I quit" statement, and shows precisely the contrition and reflection that various parties in here claim he does not show.
7. This is by no means the only time his comments in this very proceeding have been badly distorted with the sole aim of banning a long-term and highly productive editor simply for not having offended someone and not having abased himself in a way that precisely satisfies the disapproving party. Just one of over a dozen examples: "the incivility which he has outright told us he has no intentions to stop". That's distortion that verges on blatant fabrication.

So, no, I'm not on board with this at all. I repeat: we need to retain editors who are generally productive, not chase them away just to make a point and smooth someone's feathers. If I ran to ANI every time someone offended me, I'd do little but be complaining in ANI every other day. "Someone was mean to me and made me out to look like I was doing something foolish or disruptive" does not equate to "someone needs to be banned" (even if their implication was wrong, which is not at all proven here). Cf. my actual ANI activity of late, where I have reported patently NOTHERE parties and got them indeffed, but also gone out of my way to retain a confused and often small-time disruptive noob because they have potential, and to retain but topic-restrict a CoI/SPA despite his BLP problems about one subject, because he has reasonable input into another – despite (and this is important here) him being grossly uncivil to several parties in the course of that (even implying two of them were cultists or cult apologists for not letting him get his way without RS in material about cults); I supported retaining him because he showed contrition and understanding why this was no okay (as EEng has done here). Always look for a way to keep an editor who is not just here to cause trouble.

Above it was said that "The arguments defending ... senior editors who overstep reasonable limits ... haven't really changed much over time" [since the 2000s]. I have to suggest that this is strong evidence of community consensus in favor of retaining generally productive editors even if they screw up from time to time. We do sometimes eventually ban such people anyway, but only when the problems they cause finally come to outweigh the good they do, i.e. when they become a net negative. EEng has not. The cases I can think of were people who were clearly becoming more and more frustrated with everyone around them, getting in increasing numbers of conflicts with increasingly battlegroundy results. That's not happening here. EEng just popped off in way that has actually become decreasingly characteristic of him over the years.

If EEng "goes after" the same editors again, different story. If his behavior escalates into a string of additional and worsening incivility towards other parties, different story. If after another three entire years he slips up again and uses some swear words and sarcasm toward someone, we can look at it again, but it's probably also not going to be something ban-worthy. No one has to have perfect behavior here. This is a huge project full of very different people, and getting along as well as we're practically able is a means to an end; getting along flawlessly all the time is not the end itself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC); rev'd 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

blocks are only supposed to be used to protect the integrity of the project, not to punish the deserving Exactly. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Any block here is prevantative, not punitive. It would prevent the user from engaging in the incivility which he has outright told us he has no intentions to stop. That would be an indef for any new user. My account is 11 months old, I'm sure I would be indeffed for saying what he's saying about this block if I was ever blocked. JM (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Good block as a start; however, the situation indicates further action is needed. This is not an isolated incident, and EEng said it all himself: ...if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. If an editor here sixteen days declared that their motivation here was to go against Wikipedia principles and policy, and that being blocked was a badge of honor, they'd be indeffed as NOTHERE in short order. While there can be some leeway and understanding for an editor here nearly sixteen years, I don't think that applies when incivility is the standard pattern and not an out-of-character outburst. There are calls above for a siteban; it is difficult to disagree with those. Unblockables aren't as unblockable as they used to be. For years I've seen incivility used as a way for editors to get what they want by intimidating others into submission. Civility is a pillar, not some obscure guideline. While perfection is not expected, these principles ought to be held in high regard. For an editor to openly declare that it shouldn't apply to them speaks for itself. --Sable232 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support extending block to indefinite and the word "extending" feels inapt because it would get lifted earlier than the end of the 72-hour block. Levy an indef, let EEng complete the extremely simple task of appealing via WP:NICETRY, and reap the undeniable benefits of his good work without having to deal with complaints like this over and over. His defenders should be chomping at the bit to get him indeffed because a successful appeal would require he finally stop doing the stuff that gets him dragged here all the time and of course they all would want that, right? City of Silver 02:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a real problem with the net positive / net negative lens. It's always cast as "net positive to the project", which elides that someone out there, not the project in the aggregate, but a real live editor, is experiencing the negative aspect of someone's behavior. This isn't exactly "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", but it came to mind. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Closing side discussion. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the word jabberwocky sums up this comment well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I honestly cannot believe I'm getting dogpiled by this guy's supporters. What a world. City of Silver 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I didn't realize how dysfunctional Wikipedia can be until becoming a frequent editor. JM (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I am going to copy the edit summary for City of Silver's comment above in full here: is this the new thing? Being gentle on the noticeboard and saving the actual nastiness for the edit summary? Fine, I'll do that, and I'll even ping you because I'm not a coward like you. Would the person reading this out loud for User:The Blade of the Northern Lights please tell them they shouldn't get mad at me because I can read and they can't? But City of Silver wants EEng indeffed for being uncivil. Yes, JM2023, Wikipedia is very dysfunctional. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) @Lepricavark: You forgot to copypaste Blade's remark to me and its accompanying edit summary. It'll help your case because an administrator appearing from out of nowhere to insult me like that is nothing compared to how I replied, right? City of Silver 04:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Blade's edit summary expressed confusion at what you were trying to say. I do not believe it was uncivil. Pointedness is not the same as incivility. You responded by calling him a coward and saying that he can't read. Those are both obvious personal attacks. I am not interested in arguing with you, and I do not expect that you will reconsider your choice of words. But I do suspect that most open-minded observers will be able to detect the inconsistency between your !vote for an indef and your own incivility. As for your complaint about an administrator appearing from out of nowhere to reply to you (and not, as you mistakenly claim, to insult you), this is a public noticeboard. Do you expect some kind of advance notice before people respond to your comments? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC) @Lepricavark: I asked why you didn't include the text of the reply User:The Blade of the Northern Lights left me and its accompanying edit summary but maybe I was in the wrong for doing that since I knew. If you reproduced their claim that my message is akin to "Jabberwocky", a literary work that our article describes as "a nonsense poem", you then claiming that was merely them speaking pointedly and not a violation of NPA would look awfully silly. Really: I absolutely believe this because I can think of literally no other reason for you to exclude what they said about my message, which was "I believe the word jabberwocky sums up this comment well." Let me be clear: My words regarding Blade's lack of literacy and bravery are me speaking with pointedness, nothing more. If you're complying with our guideline asking editors to assume good faith, you can't read what I just said and still believe it was a personal attack. It's good that you're "not interested in arguing" with me because Blade's reply and edit summary were insults, you wrongly said they weren't, I've now corrected you twice, and this approach from you means we're both good to let my correction of your mistake stand. City of Silver 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Blade criticized your comment by implying that it was nonsensical. You attacked Blade personally by calling him a coward who cannot read. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) @Lepricavark: You have this exactly backwards. User:The Blade of the Northern Lights violated NPA by calling my comment nonsense and hiding an even harsher personal attack in the edit summary. I replied to that with pointedness, not a personal attack, by calling Blade "a coward who cannot read" and explaining how I'd deduced that. Let's keep going back and forth on this, though. City of Silver 06:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I would laugh, but you seem to be serious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC) And where did I say I was a supporter of anyone here? I was reading this discussion and saw a comment that made absolutely no sense, if I was supporting or opposing an unblock for EEng I'd have said so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I interpret the following as personal attacks: Your claim that you "believe the word jabberwocky sums up this comment well" regarding my message Your edit summary on that message that said "What in god's name is this trying to say?" Your claim that my message "made absolutely no sense." Please retract all of them. City of Silver 06:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Those are all characterizations of a comment, not attacks aimed at the person who made the comment. Getting your feelings hurt because your writing undergoes criticism is not the same thing as being personally attacked. If it were, all reviewers at Did You Know and Good Articles would be blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I've now tried, on three occasions, to parse your original comment. As best I can follow the train of thought, EEng's supporters should be pushing for EEng to be indefinitely blocked so he can be unblocked. I entirely fail to see the logic, and have no compunction about saying so. Any comments about my reading comprehension are misguided at best, I have records of all my reading assessments from a very young age and I'm definitively not on the illiterate side of the bell curve. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC) When I first saw your comment (and before anyone replied) I considered striking it as likely to produce more heat than light, but figured I'd just get reverted anyway and let it stand. In the cool light of reason, do you think an unadorned comment asking City of Silver to further explain what they meant would have been the better choice? Mackensen (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block, oppose further action – I don't think EEng should be indeffed for this, but I also don't think we should just roll over every time he offends someone. If he won't learn to take a break when he gets upset, we'll give him one. 72 hours is good this time. – bradv 02:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block and I would be open to supporting editing restrictions to curb the unwarranted aggression shown in the OP's quoted comments. In that most recent quoted situation, I can't find any conceivable reason to escalate the situation.

1. The bot was making edits within policy and with an explicit consensus at BRfA.
2. The bot operator Kanashimi paused operations less than a half hour after EEng's message.
3. Kanashimi and Qwerfjkl quickly worked—exceedingly kindly, as far as I can see!—to find a solution for EEng's original problem (watchlist flooding) without slowing the approved task to a glacial pace.
4. Kanashimi and Qwerfjkl didn't assume any knowledge on EEng's part, which was part of EEng's problem... but that was also probably the correct way to approach the situation, as who would assume that the random person they are messaging spent 45 years as a computer scientist?

• The thing that stands out to me after reading that discussion is if EEng had practiced the most basic form of WP:AGF, we wouldn't be here right now. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Put down the pitchforks and take a deep breath. So much for EEng being an unblockable. This thread quickly devolved into a mob out for blood. The 72-hour block was reasonable. Let EEng serve out the block and then go back to being a productive editor. When he messes up again, give him another short block. We do not need to be indeffing valuable contributors for occasionally stepping out of line. As for the suggestion that EEng gets away with comments that would get a new editor blocked, please note this snide personal jab from ASmallMapleLeaf, who is a very new editor, at the beginning of this thread. Nobody seems to care about that. I guess it's okay for a new editor to be uncivil as long as they are attacking one of the so-called unblockables. How about if everyone calms down and quits trying to run off a net-positive editor who has already been punished? This sort of mob mentality has no place on Wikipedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well put, I agree with this. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Something additional beyond the 72 hours will probably be needed to effect a genuine course change, but let's not have a lynch mob. North8000 (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can understand where @Lepricavarks viewpoint since he joined later in the thread, but my comment was the 3rd comment made on this thread. No I wasn't aware it would get this much attention until I saw his account age (4 years). The comment was made before they were blocked and I honestly thought he wouldn't be blocked (rather warned) and so I decided to confirm the comments itself were incivil (to me) and that @A smart kitten wasn't trying to police 'swearing' as someone else claimed, and as such warranted some sort of action. I don't know how that is a personal attack ?(context applied)

  ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I think you know which part of your comment was a personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  'You know which part' no I don't please elaborate on how the (short) statement can be classified as a WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS violation? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree. The heat here is now far exceeding the light. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hear hear! ~Awilley (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing further needed Wikipedia is supposed to favor inclusivity yet struggles to cope with the fact that EEng occasionally expresses himself forcefully. If contributors are unable to cope with that, short blocks can be used. Jumping to indef in a situation like this is totally inappropriate. It would better if people were to focus on the underlying issue (mass adjustment of article talk page headers) but ANI is not the right place for that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that no further action is needed, but really? Acting like punishing very blatant personal attacks is against inclusivity? What?? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm neutral regarding the indef, but I am not neutral regarding this message. If inclusivity is to be a criterion for evaluating the block imposed on the user, then this is some next level doublespeak, coming from an admin no less. The user has a history of personal attacks and hostility, a pretty extensive block log linked to said behaviour, but according to you he should not be further blocked because we are supposed to favour inclusivity? In the name of inclusivity we are expected to allow a person to get away with behaviour that clearly makes other users feel unincluded? We have two dozen people right here finding his attitude toward other users block worthy (whether temp or indef), which evidently points to "inclusivity" being at odds with the editor's conduct. Ostalgia (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Observation I find hyperbolic metaphors to actual physical violence such as "pitchforks" and "mobs" and especially "lynch mob" to be deeply unhelpful here. Nobody is proposing to stab EEng with the sharpened tines of a hay rake. Nobody is proposing to tie a noose around EEng's neck and string him up from the tree in the town square, with a postcard photographer documenting the atrocity. We are debating what the appropriate sanction ought to be for an editor who has been blocked, by my count, 17 times. Although I am not supporting an indefinite block myself at this time, supporting that is not an outlandish stance to take since EEng has a long well-documented history of failing to keep their "angry court jester" persona under control. Cullen328 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I understand your discomfort with the imagery, I do believe it is appropriate to regard the above as a mob. And this bothers me because I have seen what wikimobs are capable of. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it makes sense that I am more alarmed by this than you are. You are one of our most popular admins, and it is unlikely that the community will ever turn on you like this. I, on the other hand, am a gnome who mostly keeps to myself. The type of editing I do does not necessitate cultivating Wiki-friendships, and I doubt if anyone here would notice or care if I simply disappeared one day. The only people who might feel any emotion in regard to me are the ones who might be hanging onto a grudge over all an old dispute; I've expressed strong opinions on Wiki matters enough times that I've probably acquired a few enemies over the years. While I try to avoid running afoul of WP:CIVIL, if I were ever to slip up and find myself the subject of a thread here, it is quite possible that some old enemies would show up to get their pound of flesh. And who would speak for me? Probably nobody. I think that's a sufficiently good reason for me to speak up when I see a mob forming against someone else. Everyone keeps saying that EEng's friends will turn up to get him out of this block, and maybe that's why so many editors have cast their lot against him. But so far almost nobody is speaking for him, and I think someone with his record of service deserves a little more dignity than this. Pardon my ramblings, but hopefully now you can understand why I take this so seriously. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I believe it is a useful and appropriate metaphor to a certain extent. The group building up a head of steam partially from it's own posts while talking about the harshest penalties that can possibly be given here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Youse all have good points. I agree with Lepricavark and North8000 that "mob" in the sense of "mob rule" is an apt metaphor here, especially given all the blatant distortions of EEng's own statements and of the facts of his block log and ANI history (a great deal of which was nonsense at best) to just reach to a heavyhanded result. But Cullen328 is right to criticize use of "lynch mob", and I'll go further: "Lynching" and "lynch mob" usually refer specifically to white-supremacist organized murders of African-Americans (broader use in reference to other mob killings is attested but rare, and rarer in later material), so this is basically a slight variant on the Godwin's law principle of not trivializing atrocities to make a rhetorical point about someone you disagree with on a website.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: @Cullen328: I'm sorry if I picked too strong of a term. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• endorse block. oppose indef. an indef is overkill. if he continues this after the block, though, i'd be more inclined to indef. ltbdl (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  forget i said anything. ltbdl (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Block seems reasonable enough, oppose any extension, indef or ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block and suggest indef - It was a while ago, but I was absolutely astonished to see what this user gets away with in the order of incivility, belligerent sarcasm, swearwords and insults, incorrigilby. Just look at the habitually highhanded way the user has reacted on h own talk page to this short block! Looks like a person who considers h-self flawless. Many many active users have been blocked indefinitely for being obviously and intentionally offensive, but in my 14 years of contributing I have never seen anybody come close to this one. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Regretfully, I disagree with the last part of your last sentence. There are at least a dozen admins and high level editors - maybe several dozen - that engage in similar behavior with little to no consequences because of status. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support extending block to indefinite Per Ivanvector and SergeWoodzing. I have been following ANI for a very, very long time and again and again I have found it disappointing how EEng got away with atrocious behaviour. Has an other editor ever received that many blocks without getting indeffed? As IvanVector wrote: EEng is Wikipedia's self-appointed court jester; nobody asked him to be, nobody thinks a court jester is a good idea on a project that values collaboration and civility, and various editors keep asking him to stop, but he won't. He never sees any kind of real consequence other than the occasional definite block that he's more than happy to sit out since it means he never has to modify his behaviour, and there's a small group of editors that cheer him on and always an admin who will invent a rationale to unblock, so why would he ever improve? Nothing will change unless and until EEng sees real consequences, […]. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Has an other editor ever received that many blocks without getting indeffed?" According to my back of a fag-packet calculations, Eric Corbett / Malleus Fatuorum was blocked over 50 times before the final, Arbcom-enforced one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I was sure that question had a positive answer but couldn't be bothered to do the research. I now see that there's another case of a user having been blocked more times being discussed at WP:AN. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having a court jester is a good thing, using it as an excuse to insult other editors is doing an awful job at it. Methinks the community should appoint a new jester. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block (thanks for that Isabelle) and support extending to indefinite. Every time a user leaves the project because they're done with all the aggression and disrespect, done with the everyday and almost casual rudeness, done with caring for the project and honestly not knowing anymore why they ever bothered in the first place, WP is potentially losing an expert scholar, a great writer, a diligent editor, an untiring admin. I sincerely believe that if civility would ever be taken seriously, WP would soon become twice the resource it is, both in terms of quality and scope.
  The tragedy of WP is that it is stuck in the late 90s or early 00s internet culture which it sprang from, where a certain amount of flaming and hostility was just part of the deal for everyone. The concept that a text-only medium requires constant self-moderation, that it demands a conscious attempt to 'be nice' (even if one doesn't feel that way), was something foreign and new, and ultimately not appealing to the free-wheeling community that created the internet. Times have changed, and WP has changed too, but not enough. It has not changed in one of the most crucial ways it should have: we're still chasing away thousands of users every year simply by being invariably and unnecessarily rude to them. It almost seems as if only people with an amazing and at times inexplicable ability to put up with all the rudeness are actually able to stay on here.
  I don't know if this is what Star Mississippi meant, but it seems right that EEng's usual attitude is "I can say what I want, no one will block me", but that the conduct shown here (especially in their reaction to the block) has gone even beyond that. From these two geniuses showed up to high-handedly smirk to each other and So while some might think me uncivil, at least I'm not uncivil and clueless -- a deadly combination[105] over being lectured by a couple of script kiddies and a block only requires that one trigger-happy admin get high and mighty over something that others aren't exercised about[106] to It's an interesting exercise to count up how many of the admins who've blocked me are no longer admins[107], EEng has taken to being utterly unapologetic in their lack of civility. They seem to believe they have a right to be uncivil, and that most anyone who has ever had tried to curb that right (and a great many have tried), must have themselves been in the wrong, somehow. Why anyone should expect such a deep-seated attitude to just disappear after 72 hours is beyond me.
  Sure, nothing about that long-term attitude is too different from –say– a few weeks ago, and there was no 'mob' at ANI then, so this must all be some blown-up drama over a few unfortunate comments, right? That's absolutely the feeling I get when seeing an ANI header called 'Incivility by EEng'. My gut reaction is 'not again', 'this will never work'. And that indeed was the tendency of many early comments, before it completely turned towards the natural counterpart 'but if it will never work, then that in itself is a problem'. At this point we seem to have reached the final act, where the 'mob' has gone home, where good sense prevails again, and where everyone decides they have something better to do. We know we will end up here again, but that's okay, probably will just be the occasion for another batch of new-ish editors to learn that we don't indef block for this.
  I get all of that, and I agree, except for that one part 'we don't indef block for this'. I think we should, and if we would, this thread and its very type would not exist. Casual and habitual rudeness and aggression should always be met with an indef WP:CIV block. And that's undeniably what we've got here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support community ban; I endorsed the block in an earlier comment, and since EEng has plainly stated he intends to wait it out and not learn anything, it should be made indefinite. By his own comments in response to the block it's clear that EEng views chronic and occasionally severe incivility as necessary to edit Wikipedia and views the block as an administrator overstepping their authority, when in fact neither is true: the block is a consequence of his own actions and nothing more. It should be made indefinite until he acknowledges that, and the community should accept EEng's next appeal rather than the decision being up to a single admin driving by. Wikipedia's founding principle is "anyone can edit", not "anyone can edit who can put up with occasional abuse from editors who deem themselves superior". Whatever it is that EEng does when he's not making stupid jokes and telling people off, if it's so important somebody else will do it without their behaviour having to be scrutinized and defended all the time. Of the billion-plus edits to Wikipedia, a tiny, tiny fraction necessitate reports to this noticeboard; it is not anybody's "job" to get themselves blocked ever, let alone as many times as EEng has. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose ban. What’s wrong with the block? According to Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking for incivility, Blocking for incivility is possible when incivility causes serious disruption. They’ve caused significant disruption to the close review and pain to the discussion on the bot, what more is there to warrant a ban? How about we just follow the “trial run” suggestion above and block them whenever they do an incivility? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The reason for a ban, and the only reason, is because it requires appeal to the community. We already block them when they "do an incivility", the existence of this thread shows that it isn't working. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th, in addition to several blocks for other reasons. I do not believe Cremastra's "trial run" suggestion above will work, given the extensive block log and previous ANI threads on this user. SkyWarrior 15:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  A "trial run" would work with an editor who has been uncivil and wants to reform, but needs help and a gentle hand. EEng doesn't think he's done anything wrong, so a trial run is pointless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  My impression is that it also requires time before the first appeal. Or have I confused it with arbitration? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not automatically, no. By policy, the difference between blocks and bans is that blocks are enacted by individual administrators and can be reversed by any other administrator (with discussion and agreement) while bans are enacted by community consensus and require community consensus to modify or remove. There is grey area in the interpretation of both policies, and significant overlap, but a ban doesn't come with an automatic moratorium on appeals unless one is explicitly written into it, and you're right that that's a common feature of arbitration bans. Technically any restriction that results from this discussion is a ban by policy, but we probably won't call it that, it'll probably be something like a "community indefinite block" which is not actually defined by policy. Of course this is all academic and we're not supposed to be a bureaucracy; the crux of my argument is that the block should be made so that it does not expire and can't be reversed until EEng convinces the community that they will do better and not need to be blocked again, however we actually describe it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef. Surely we're past the "one more chance" stage. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments - it’s not lost on me (and probably many other non-admins and regular editors) that:

• if we carried on this way (even just sporadically), we’d be in much bigger trouble.
• if we come here seeking redress and it involves an admin or high level editor, we’re likely going to be made to regret it — better to just hunker down or step away for awhile.
• for someone who’s supposed to be a positive contributor, this thread alone sure is sucking up a lot of time
• 45 years as a high level engineer: so what. Maybe some of the rest of us have also done important things but we don’t play the big shot card
• I don’t understand why this person can’t just be nice like other people — I’ve had a dog vomit on my rug, too. I just cleaned it up. I didn’t take it out on other people.
• Either acknowledge this behavior is within bounds for some people or go long - several months. 72 hours is just a pointless token in this case apparently to be worn as a badge of righteous honor.

This will be an interesting test for the WP:ANI community. In the meantime, I’m headed back to the engine room. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support extending block to indefinite per Ivanvector and others. I get the whole blocks-are-not-supposed-to-be-punitive line, but in this case a block is necessary to preserve the right of editors to do their work here without being personally attacked. Notwithstanding the good content work and excellent commitment he's given to the project in the past, EEng sadly has IMHO a bit of a longstanding attitude that WP is his personal fiefdom and that his edicts on various topics are to be followed immediately, with the "transgressor" being treated to a barrage of insults if they don't immediately acquiesce. This latest case is just one such - EEng unloading on an editor for doing something they were allowed to do, and on the basis of a "flooded" watchlist which it was well within his own power to configure and sort out by himself. This followed by a hunkering down to wait out the 72 hours and asserting that being blocked is part of doing a good job on the project. I'll obviously caveat this with the usual "indefinite does not mean infinite" line, and as such I'd favour a simple indefinite block rather than a community ban at this point, which would probably be much harder to undo. If, and hopefully when, EEng can satisfy the community that he has a plan for conducting himself in a manner markedly different from that which he has been doing, then an unblock could be granted. A simple 72-hours and a slap on the wrist doesn't seem to cut the mustard here though.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and if a longer absence from the site is needed, I'm not against it. As someone whose primary interactions with the user in question are on this venue, where disciplinary action is routinely given, I find making light of cases by adding jokes or unrelated images highly disrespectful to the process, and I'm certain that if any other user tried to do what EEng has been doing for years, they'd be blocked within hours. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don’t mind humor - more would be good as long as it’s the right Kind. Humor’s not the important issue here. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. EEng still has the option to reapply per the normal process if he can drop his sense of entitlement at the door and just try to get along with the rest of us. We're all making that effort -- he can, too, if he wants. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break (EEng)

• Support indef or siteban. If there has ever been a block that would improve Wikipedia's "collaborative environment", it would be this one. This is a user who not only ignores Wikipedia's expectations regarding conduct but actively flouts them for his own amusement and has done so for many years. It's difficult to tell exactly how many times EEng's behavior has been brought up at ANI, as he's edited the ANI page 6,761 times. As far as I can tell, these are the previous times we've had this discussion at ANI:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624#Editor EENG
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Abuse by User:EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#User:EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#EEng and edit warring
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#EEng of questionable civility
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#Potentially Polemic Userbox
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#I put EEng on notice
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#Users EEng and Ricky81682
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Block review 2: EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Personal Attacks by EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#EEng's editing at WT:TPG
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#Personal attack by EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:TPO
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#EEng's continuous uncivil comments
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Incivility from EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Block of User:EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng agression
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#EEng‎ blocked
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Personal attack by EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Personal attacks by User:EEng at Talk:Kamala Harris
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Threats of violence through the internet pipes by User:EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#EEng's talk page size
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#Civility problems with EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#User:EEng
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#EEng

In most cases, it's agreed that there's a problem but that "sanctions are unnecessary". This is not counting all of the times he's caused problems that were not escalated to ANI. Either we come back here and have the same discussion again, or it stops now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support extending block to indef: We indef newbies for a hundredth the number of offenses EEng has committed. For all the positive edits he's made, anyone care to guess how many other editors have been driven away because of his invective? The time for leniency is long past. Whether it's because he's temperamentally unstable, or he just doesn't give a damn about the rules, we can't tolerate someone who's likely been brought to ANI more times than any other recent editor. Just look at this thread: how much positive work to Wikipedia taken away from each and every one of us does this represent? Either CIVIL and NPA mean something or they do not, but if the purpose of blocks is to prevent further disruption, sheesh. What are we waiting for? Ravenswing 16:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - If the community is incapable of coming to a decision on this matter. The next step will likely be Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support block, and support extending to an indefinite block or siteban. On reviewing the diffs and long history of uncivil behavior, my thoughts are per as expressed by Thebiguglyalien and Ravenswing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose block, oppose extension, siteban etc and whatever else the civility police decides is right this week. Rationale: there is incivility all over the fucking place, but rare is the block imposed if it's sufficiently passive-aggressive. ——Serial 16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  What’s passive-aggressive? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Serial, I'm not sure what you consider passive-aggressive, but active aggression like do not even attempt to patronise me[108] or unnecessary sneers like Poor judgment there, City[109] coming from you in this very thread surely aren't any better? Someone should argue the oppose side here, but if it's going to consist of shifting the blame on some unidentified group of passive aggressive others (the famous Wikipedia:Civility Police, not just any other cabal) and vindicating the right to be 'actively' aggressive (let's say it for added emphasis, fucking aggressive), that's painfully unconvincing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I’m not going to assume bad faith, but I think the “this is a mob” line being pushed by a few editors here is not correct criticism of what’s happenning here, and it could have the effect of causing other editors to back down from endorsing or advocating for a preventative indef block or siteban. What’s clear is that the user has been blocked or brought to ANI a ridiculous amount of times, and has not ever changed his behaviour, and with this most recent block, has said things like a block only requires that one trigger-happy admin get high and mighty over something that others aren't exercised about and It's an interesting exercise to count up how many of the admins who've blocked me are no longer admins and if I don't get blocked once in a while, I'm not doing my job. I stand by my comments, obviously. It's not being a mob to say that this calls for an indef or siteban, as I already said above. JM (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose extension of block. The size of this thread vs the seriousness of the supposed infraction that started it is ridiculous. Even in this thread we've had far worse incivility with none of the perpetrators even blocked yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Which editors do you have in mind? Also, the length of the discussion comes from its contentiousness, not from the seriousness or lack thereof of any infractions. JM (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose suggestion of ban, indef, or anything beyond the block thats already been given. Mostly on is he wrong tho? grounds, but also because this is only getting attention because of the person and not because of the action. If anybody who didnt have so many fans that go looking for problems had said these things they would have been left alone on a user talk page. AFAICT the person supposedly attacked so badly that the attack merits a site ban hasnt even said a word about it. Seriously, youre going to ban somebody who obviously edits in good faith and does a ton of positive work because they got in to a tiff at a user talk page? When that user hasnt even complained? nableezy - 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  So you're opposed because 1) you agree with his incivility and thus support the thing he was blocked for, and 2) think that because he's supposedly unpopular, we should ignore support for extensions? JM (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, Id appreciate if the incivility of misrepresenting my position were taken more seriously than intemperate words. One of those is more corrosive to an encyclopedia than the other. nableezy - 18:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  No misrepresentation, let alone incivility, just a request for clarification; and I think to call it incivil misrepresentation may be bad faith, and I don't think that my comment in any way is worse than Eeng's incivility. Of course, you are free to open a new section to find out if people agree, but I don't think its worthwhile. JM (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, definitely misrepresentation. I agreed with EEng's point, not his incivility, and I think the points correctness and the response to the initial request does factor in to how severe I think the incivility should be treated. You did indeed misrepresent my point, but I am not assuming you did so out of bad faith or incompetence or any other reason at all. I am just saying that what I wrote is not what you said I wrote, and I find that to be more insidious to the goal of making an encyclopedia. But, also, you can stop bludgeoning this discussion. nableezy - 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is bludgeoning, as my comments are not a huge amount of the discussion, nor have I responded to most of the people I disagree with, nor have I made the same argument many times to many people. I also don't think asking if my interpretation is correct is misrepresenting, if anything it's trying to avoid misrepresentation. JM (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The leading question in which you distort my position entirely is yes misrepresentation. nableezy - 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Voorts has said words about it. The Cewbot escalation isn’t the only problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  That happened here. And was presumably dealt with here then. If not, running it back here seems like trying to get a second shot at a sanction. nableezy - 18:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Voorts appears to still be "frustrated about the outcome" of an RFC where their bad close was reverted, ignoring the messages from the multiple people who reverted it (including EEng) and casting about for anyone else who will reassure them that their bad close was not bad. So I think there might be reason for not taking their opinion here as that of a neutral observer. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I closed a discussion (not an RfC) on an insignificant page over an insignificant issue. Editors involved came to my talk page asking me to overturn my close. I declined and asked them to take it to AN for a close review.

  Two weeks later another editor (who was also involved in the discussion and had !voted) decided to take things into their own hands and unilaterally overturn my close. I restored the close and asked them to follow process. EEng (who had participated in past discussions on the issue) then unilaterally overturned my close, insulting my intelligence and competence as he did so. I asked EEng to be polite, and he continued to insult me. I then asked for a neutral close review at Wikipedia talk:Closure requests, where EEng then followed me and continued to cast aspersions and insult me. As I explained in that thread, I've been open to and asked for a proper close review from the beginning, hence my "frustration". voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  another editor (who was also involved in the discussion and had !voted) False. I did not !vote in that discussion, nor did anyone else, because it wasn't a proposal or a poll or an RFC or the kind of discussion where people !vote, and thus it wasn't the kind of discussion that needed to be closed, which is why your close was wrong and was undone. You were wrong, you were reverted, get over it, or at least stop misrepresenting what happened. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I forgot to mention that a close was requested by one of the participants in the discussion and that I didn't just waltz in and close a random discussion. Other than use of "!vote", what exactly did I get wrong in my description above that is relevant to this AN/I thread about EEng's behavior? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Repeated sealioning makes me want to curse, but I won't, because then a bunch of people will call for me to be site banned. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm defending myself against false accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you replied to Levivich in the wrong thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll take that response as either implying that I'm misrepresenting things ("They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions.") or that my request that you follow the only procedure with some form of community consensus that we have for overturning a close or for a peer review of my close were somehow "frivolous and time-wasting". As I said above, I've asked people to take this to AN for a close review from the outset, you overturned my close and then we tried discussing it, and EEng was disparaging and insulting at AN/I and CR. I'm not sure what I'm misrepresenting here. If, as you've suggested many times, my close was bad (and looking at the state of the discussion now, it still seems to be "ILIKEIT" vs. "IDONTLIKEIT"), AN would have promptly overturned it and we could've avoided a whole lot of needless drama. My asking for a neutral, constructive peer review (which, as you'll see at the CR thread, I have yet to receive) is so that I can learn how to be a better discussion closer, not so that I can point to a positive peer review of my close and say "I told you so." voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Despite repeated sealioning, I am not going to take the bait and lose my shit, because then people will judge me for it as if I'm the problem. Instead, I'll just assume you were somehow genuinely confused and did not realize that the part that you misrepresented is the part that I quoted and then rebutted with a link. I hope that clears things up for you. Levivich (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could you guys take this elsewhere? Maybe take it to that close review? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  We're done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support 72 hour block; Strongly oppose any extension of the block, or a ban. Speaking as someone who has been insulted by EEng (a long time ago – he has almost certainly forgotten about it) I think the suggestions for an indeff or a community ban are massively out of proportion. So he is sometimes rude, and the quality of his ‘humour’ may best be described as ….variable….This does not constitute major disruption to the project.
  Procedural objection: Since EEng is currently blocked, he cannot answer any of the arguments which are being made against him. @Isabelle Belato: Surely the block should be amended to allow him to defend himself here? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Sweet6970: EEng has access to their talk page, where they have been posting replies to some of the comments left here. I've copied a couple of them over to this thread when asked to, which is standard procedure. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. I don’t think that is an effective solution to the problem created by the block. My personal view on this is that the current situation is so unfair that any decision reached on the basis of the current procedure should automatically be overturned. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think it warrants overturning any decision that could be made, I agree to amend the block to allow EEng to talk here for the purposes of this discussion, and hopefully have it as a precedent for people not able to participate in a discussion about their block. (This doesn't change my support of an indefinite block, by the way) ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's not actually possible - blocked editors can edit only their own talk page unless that is also turned off. There is no way to enable them to edit other pages other than lifting the block entirely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  But couldn't EEng be unblocked solely in order to post on this page (and their user page and talk page, I guess)? I believe I've seen this happen here before, and we are among other things talking about a site ban. I tend to agree with Sweet6970, even if I don't see it quite in those legal/procedural terms. I am certain EEng would not post anywhere else but here for the duration of the block or until this has been resolved. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Sluzzelin. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block or site ban I don't have any problem with the original block, but there is absolutely nothing here warranting such a punitive action. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: just in case you missed it (it's a large thread after all), much of the current concern seems to be spurred by the way EEng reacted to the initial block on their talk, e.g. [110][111][112], which I would describe as 'doubling down' and 'deflecting'. Of course, reasonable minds may differ. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, oppose indef or site ban. Instead I propose EEng be punished by having to implement automatic archiving of their talkpage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now that's a result I could get behind! >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, Oppose indef, per Black Kite, David Eppstein, Boing, and others. The current block is appropriate, but additional sanctions at this point would be punitive. I do, however, encourage EEng to absorb the wise comments from Tryptofish above. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, JoJo. At this point, it really looks to me like this ANI discussion is turning into a stew of every angry and ill-conceived thought that anyone can think of. I'm frankly worried that some admin will get the very bad idea of acting on the many calls for an indef, and enact it without doing the necessary analysis first. For starters, it's worth looking at EEng's talk page, where he has made some comments that have not been copied here, that are worth considering for context. Others have said here at ANI that EEng's personality is such that, if indeffed, he will refuse to appeal, and I believe that this is true, so we would simply lose him as an editor. I also see a number of editors saying, reasonably, that we should steer clear of language about mobs and pitchforks and the like. I agree. But I will say that a lot of editors need to calm down about this. Whenever there's a dispute, one like this or one of any other nature, the best thing to do is to see if there's a way to WP:DEESCALATE the conflict. Wouldn't it be better, instead of all the arguing here, for editors to get back to productive content editing? This discussion has stopped being one where a reasoned decision about whether or not to extend the block can be made in a thoughtful way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I struck one sentence, because EEng just said otherwise on his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

    Observation: I think I see more support now for a long or indefinite block than your position, User:Tryptofish. Maybe that'll change if the discussion stays open. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

    WP:VOTE, which is why I urge any admin who is thinking of enacting an indef on the basis of counting votes, to think twice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

    Tryptofish, I'm familiar with WP:VOTE. That, of course, works both ways. I was responding to your comment:

    • "Wouldn't it be better, instead of all the arguing here, for editors to get back to productive content editing? This discussion has stopped being one where a reasoned decision about whether or not to extend the block can be made in a thoughtful way."

    -A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying. I had misunderstood your comment to mean that because of the numerical count, an indef ought to follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, oppose indef EEng does have a point that the length of their block log is misleading, and I am uneasy about handing out an indef for incivility on the back of this incident. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the reply from EEng on the long evidence list above:

Look, I'm going to work, but something needs to be said about the distorted "evidence" now being adduced at ANI. First we've got someone saying, 'This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th'. No, it's not the 11th, but anyway the problem with my block log is you have to actually look at what happened. Just two off the top of my head:

• [113] Admin warned that repeating such a block in future might lead to desysopping
• [114] Admin is "reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks"

Not just many but most of my blocks have ended like that.

Then we've got someone posting an impressive list of ANI section headers that happen to have my name in them, characterized as 'In most cases, it's agreed that there's a problem but that "sanctions are unnecessary".' Let's take a few randomly:

• [115] Someone's joke report
• [116] User accusing me of "blasphemy" because I said "Jesus Christ!" in a post
• [117] Report by editor trolling with stuff like "I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing. ... I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here that are avid Wiki types, contributors and fans.." (link just given) and "I spend summers on the West Coast in CA and AZ with fellow old researchers and younger students, and can often be found hanging around the supercomputing lab at UCSD." [118]
• [119] Editor Edoktor complaining that by addressing him playfully as "Herr Doktor", I was comparing him to Nazis.
• [120] Editor complaining about my edit summary reverting a MOS change: "Whoa there, pilgrim! This is a longstanding provision that is consistent with many (I'm not saying all) major style guides."
• [121] Complainant indeffed

That's not 'In most cases, it's agreed that there's a problem but that "sanctions are unnecessary". That's not to say that I'm not out of line more than occasionally, and I do apologize for that, but just listing out every ANI thread with my name in it isn't any way to gauge that.

It's also been said that I've made 6,761 edits to ANI. Well yeah, if you count the many thousands of edits (literally) that were the archiving of old threads.

This is really becoming a kangaroo court, with wild misstatements being piled in left and right which I'm not able to counter in a timely manner. And as the wise man said (paraphrasing and extending here) [122] the incivility of misrepresenting facts, events, and others' positions should be taken as or more seriously than the incivility of intemperate words.
— User:EEng 19:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, they've just written another letter:

One more thing: I really bristle at inclusion of something about AGF in the proposed restriction. You will never see me assuming that anyone here isn't acting in good faith, except the occasional obvious sockpuppet or PROMO account. It's one thing for the record to reflect that I can be prickly -- I'll own that -- but it's really not right to imply I haven't always applied AGF. Just something that seems to matter to me for some reason.

OK, and now something else. Until now IRL stuff prevented me from having quiet time to think about this, but on the train just now I had that time, and wrote the following:

I do recognize that sometimes I'm out of line in my dealings with other editors, and I regret that (even if sometimes I say I don't -- natural human instinct). We can argue about how much that matters, and the knock-on effects, and the positives and negatives and the net, but I hate to see everyone spending so much time in a tussle over this. So I think at this point it's best I get the indefinite block. I do enjoy editing – it's relaxing and satisfying, and in some cases I believe it even does some good in the world – but I also have other things to do (believe it or not) so I'll survive.

Don't misinterpret this as "I QUIT!", because it's not that. In the fullness of time (weeks? months?) I'll make a unblock request, which I hope will be to everyone's satisfaction. And I know myself. I will miss editing during that time – there will be that periodic pang – and perhaps the memory of that pang will remind me, when I return to editing, to think twice more often before hitting [Publish changes].

I know it's not usually the procedure for the convict to propose his own punishment, but I think an indef will be more effective than the civility restriction proposed. (Remember, we're talking about me, and I do know me, believe it or not.) A civility restriction put a target on the editor's back, and leads to baiting. I think a (fairly long) break from editing, and coming back with a fresh if chastened perspective, would have better effects in the end.

In the meantime, I will miss you all. Even you, [redacted], and you, [redacted], and yes, EVEN YOU, [redacted].

Your pal in fun editing,

EEng

P.S. Actually, if you'll unblock me for a few hours first I'll archive my talk page. Or if that's too complicated I'll promise to do it straight away when I get back.

Aaron Liu (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef per EEng (obviously, I am invovled here). I was going to support a civility ban and was about to post the following, which I'll reproduce here: Ghosts of Europa has said some of what I intended to say. Nobody should have to be afraid of abuse, insults, assumptions of bad faith, or incivility, and then be told that complaining about it will likely boomerang back to you. If these are truly random outbursts from EEng, as some have asserted in this thread, and if, on balance, he is a net good to the project, catching a block once in a while for incivility will give him time to cool down, rethinkthings, and protect other editors who have to put up with his behavior. I think a siteban/indef here is based on pretty weak evidence; I agree with EEng that some of his past blocks were not justifiable and that some of the ANI threads opened above hardly show misbehavior on his part. However, I note that many of the editors calling for those outcomes are newer editors, whereas older editors have defended EEng or even tried to explain away his misconduct as just being a part of his personality. As Apaugasma has argued, this probably represents a cultural shift between generations of internet users. However, I also believe that if EEng had behaved this way in any other volunteer organization (or in his workplace), he would have been booted long ago. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and we should treat each other with collegiality and respect. Civility is not just a policy: it's a core pillar of the Wikipedia community. We should act like it. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to say I'm greatly encouraged by the most recent post by EEng, following the "quiet time on the train"... Per EEng's own comments there, and my earlier comment above, I'm not at this point changing my opinion that it's best for us to have an "indefinite but not infinite" block at this moment in time, but it sounds like when EEng is ready to come back in however many weeks or months, they will be able to put in an unblock request with the necessary level of introspection and promising to do better, in which case I should hopefully be able to support unblocking unreservedly and we can all put the fun back into fun editing. Cheers,  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I was just coming here to comment on that same post, and I'm glad that you said that, thanks. And I want to say, very seriously, to all the editors (not you) who have posted hyperbolic statements about EEng having made it clear that he doesn't care what the community thinks, and so forth, that you have been piling on without regard for reality. Anyone who has been around the project for long has a pretty clear picture of what the typical indeffed editor sounds like. And the most central component of that is self-awareness, self-reflection, which is usually sorely lacking in the indeffed. But I think that anyone with a pulse can see, in EEng's comments copied to here, that he is genuinely self-reflecting. I hope to see similar self-awareness in those who criticize him. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef - no real argument has been adequately made against the "if this was a newbie" point because it's true; no leeway would have been granted to a newcomer if they had done the same as EEng had; they'd be thrown under the figurative prison. I continue to maintain that this two-tiered system of justice on Wikipedia is faulty in that it directly punishes newbies who know no better and often times come from an internet background where, since people aren't doing what we at the Wikimedia Project are doing, have less need to be civil and as such tend to be a little more rowdy (not defending them, but that is a point that needs to be made). If any group of people deserves punishment for this type of stuff, its elite editors who should know better.
  I'm going to say it; the reason why we give this much leeway to experienced editors in the form of shorter block times, higher standards for blocking, unblocking after an apology, etc. is because its a way of removing responsibility on other elite editors, not only in that they can imitate the behavior of bad elite editors, but also in that whenever any of their wiki-friends are violating the rules, they won't be forced to hold them responsible (y'know, like actual friend should have the balls to do) and just ignore it. It's a primal instinct that, like many traits humans gained in the savannah, runs into serious issues once you start scaling away from intimate familial groups to systems of tens of thousands of people. — Knightoftheswords 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand why so many people trumpet the 'if this was a newbie' argument as if there is no conceivable counterargument. Why doesn't it make sense that a newbie would be shown less patience than an editor with a documented history of positive contributions over many years? One person has earned a measure of goodwill and the other has not. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You are missing a lot of nuance there. Experienced editors who, despite the things they do wrong, also do a lot to improve content and to help other editors, have something to offer on the plus side of the ledger that new editors do not. That doesn't mean that they are being held to a different standard. And the way that you imply that, because of what you see as a problem in general, we should sanction a specific person, sounds like collective punishment. If you think that EEng's wiki-friends don't tell him that he needs to do things better, that we just agree with everything he does to protect ourselves, then you are unaware of what I've been telling him for years. But I agree with you that we should be careful not to judge new editors too quickly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark and Tryptofish:

  Why doesn't it make sense that a newbie would be shown less patience than an editor with a documented history of positive contributions over many years?

  Because the latter editor, via virtue of having more experience, should have a better grasp on the rules of Wikipedia than a newcomer who doesn't even know of the project space. If a scientist spouts verifiable nonsense, you don't defend him because "well, he's contributed so much to his field;" you rightfully criticize him to a greater degree than most average joes who at the very least are comparatively scientifically illiterate. People state the EEng is a magnificent contributor, but I'm sure that whatever work he does will be fulfilled by another editor, unless maybe in a very obscure area. Coverage of obscure topics is an issue on Wikipedia is a real issue, one that can be solved by welcoming more editors, and EEng's repeated wiki-agism (that he is far from the only one on this site projecting) is one of the biggest turn-offs to would-be Wikipedians, and as such I firmly maintain that when it comes to perennially disruptive editors like him, more damage is done in regards to the lost potential editors, users who become frightened of speaking up on this site after being relentlessly bullied, and those who just leave the project out of exhaustion when we keep them.

  Also, one more thing, and this doesn't apply to EEng, but a lot of this rhetoric about "they've been such a productive editor" will be used to defend users who haven't seriously edited in years, or essentially busted their asses off for adminship and have subsequently coasted off that role since while not even really exercising the rights and duties that come with admin status. — Knightoftheswords 00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think I see a question to me in there. But I would caution against using one editor to make a point about other editors. And I think the caricature of experienced editors is just a caricature. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  People state the EEng is a magnificent contributor, but I'm sure that whatever work he does will be fulfilled by another editor. That's not a particularly safe assumption. As for the assertion repeated numerous times in this thread about EEng causing the loss of potential editors, I've yet to actually see any evidence of him driving specific editors away. That kind of claim is difficult to disprove (and thus very convenient for rhetorical purposes), but it should not be made unless you intend to prove it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. I agree with pretty much everything you've said. The longer an editor has been here and the more edits they have, the better they should know the rules. Even if the "net positive" is considered, that should balance it out, considering civility is one of only five pillars of Wikipedia. I also dislike the "net positive" argument so many people have made here, because the good does not wash out the bad. It's hard to say just how many new and experienced editors are discouraged from improving the encylcopedia because of incivility from established editors, and it's even worse when no one does anything about it, thereby showing such discouraging actions are condoned by the editing community. JM (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. I was going to stay out of this, but some of the ridiculous calls for indef above have inspired me to shoot my mouth off. Worse stuff than EEng's "incivility" has been said to me, both by newbies and by experienced editors, in my years here, and I've been able to take it without asking for anyone to be blocked (for that reason). Perhaps that's because I became inured to such on Usenet, or maybe I'm just thick-skinned. I have a few ideas about the psychology of the rabid "burn the witch" crowd here, but I'd better keep them to myself lest I too arouse their ire. (Sentence struck after Cullen's comment below.) Deor (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Deor, I too oppose an indef in this case but rhetoric like rabid "burn the witch" crowd when applied to your colleagues is ill-advised and deeply unhelpful. Please reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. This has become a sprawling discussion, with at least 2 offshoots, so I'm not even sure I'm putting this in the right place. And I see that EEng himself is now advocating indef. I do take civility seriously, as not only a stated requirement for editing here but a necessary lubricant in a very large and very diverse group of participants. But different editors will naturally have different notions about what incivility looks like. I share the perception that some have expressed here that EEng's comments were not egregiously uncivil. For one thing, I don't see him assuming bad faith: it is important to recognize that things intended in good faith can nonetheless be wrong (such as a bad close followed by a refusal to self-revert) or have regrettable consequences (such as massive automated editing of article talk pages). Pointing out these problems is not inherently uncivil. For another, in my personal gut-level perception of incivility, snideness and arguments about being old-fashioned ("90s internet culture" or something like that) are worse than direct statements. (And I'm sorry, but using this discussion to excoriate the blocked editor for (a) sometimes adding humorous asides at AN/I and (b) having a long talk page feels to me like kicking the man when he's down. Civility should arise from respect, not be a pro forma exercise. So I find those parts of the discussion disappointing, thereby illustrating the differences within our community.) On balance, therefore, I'm going to stick to my guns: let the block run, the length is reasonable, and let EEng archive his talk page after that in whatever way he then wishes, and/or take his wikibreak if he still wants one. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir: as I've seen elsewhere in this thread that my observations about Wikipedia's roots in 90s internet culture have not always been received as I intended them, let me take this opportunity to clarify. I was strictly talking about Wikipedia, not about EEng or any other user (FWIW, I was an internet user in the 90s myself). I was part of an argument why I think civility in general should be more strictly enforced in a 2020s context where people's online lives are often as or more important than their offline lives, and where we are working together online to maintain one of the world's most used sources of information. It was a build-up on general principles which I thought might explain my position on this specific case, i.e. that we need to make it clear that we expect more from EEng, not because of the egregiousness of his own violations, but because we need to start expecting more from each other here in general.

  Also please note that this is about the habitually and self-assuredly uncivil way in which EEng points out problems, not about pointing out problems with other editors per se as being inherently uncivil, nor about those problems not being important or even worse than EEng's incivility. We need to expect more from each other, but that won't work if we can't talk about one editor's problems without invoking problems with other editors as somehow in defense of the first editor. If everyone starts pointing fingers at each other, it's just going to be one big circle without beginning or end. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block, oppose indef EEng was out of line, and the block was warranted though it would have been preferable to discuss it here for more than an hour and a half first. He knows he was out of line, has had some introspection, and apologized and expressed regret for his uncivil tone. That covers pretty much all the bases we ask for in a good unblock request, and while I think the enforced 72-hour wikibreak is good for him an indef would be wildly disproportionate. Enforcing civility is hard and enwiki has never really found a way that works, but an indef or community ban like some have proposed is not at all what we typically do for this level of incivility. We should put the pitchforks away, let the block expire, and move on. Instead I'll leave off with some words of wisdom: EVERYONEIS SO UNHAPPYAN/IIS REALLY CRAPPYBurma-shave The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. No opinion on original block but this discussion appears to be getting ridiculously out of proportion. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• EEng often annoys me with his flippancy and arrogance, but to say this warrants more than a 72 hour block is bizarre. Sense of proportion, please, everyone.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block because EEng was clearly out of line. Oppose indef because unlike many members of our substantial cadre of long-term productive editors who cannot remain collegial, EEng is genuinely capable of recognizing that he has been out of line (as he has now done), and also, he does not usually bear a grudge; meaning this isn't going to turn into a years-long blood feud. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose pursuing this any further. It is very difficult to tell someone that they are behaving in a stupid way without telling them they are stupid, and that is the line that EEng crosses a bit too often. But without robust opposition, really stupid things happen. Do we want an environment where irresponsible, incompetent acts go unchallenged because the challengers have all been blocked, bogged off to do something more rewarding instead, or are too scared to say just how silly the situation is? In contrast, it's much easier to wait until someone loses their cool and then drag them off to ANI than to communicate properly, including backing down on mistakes. Collaborative editing in a healthy environment needs not only civility, but also communication, appreciation that different people express themselves differently, and a willingness to listen to another's viewpoint. Those with whom EEng has crossed swords are often as lacking in the last three as EEng is in the first. We can all learn... Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose indef I know I'm probably coming here at the end of this but I thought it important to give this discussion time to develop and see EEng's reaction to all of it. I think his first responses were more or less instinct. But his last was very contrite and I think it reflects the real EEng and I believe we should give him that benefit. That's not to take away from those his actions and words affected. Make no doubt, I agree they had grievances and cause to bring this discussion. I am a firm believer in civility in every interaction. There is never a good enough excuse for incivility and I chastise myself when I haven't met that standard. There is no one that can possibly be harder on me than me. Most might not even think that some of what I consider incivility on my part and in my own interactions is actually that but I have a higher view of WP:CIVIL and I take it very serious. From what I read EEng recognizes and acknowledges his incivility and genuinely does not want to take up more of the projects time on it. I think, after his 72 hour block which I agree with, he will give himself time to evaluate and make adjustments to the way he deals with others. I think he will take the words of others he respects to heart and I think this process, however laborious, has been good for EEng and really all of us to pause and evaluate our own actions. I believe we should leave it there and move forward. --ARoseWolf 12:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. Earlier, I would have supported an indef; I got the sense that EEng (and others) felt the rules didn’t apply to him, so this would keep happening. I no longer get that impression. I appreciate EEng’s recent messages and willingness to archive his talk page, and I acknowledge that his block/ANI record looks worse than it actually is. As others have said, I think the volume and energy of this ANI thread is enough of a signal that the rules do apply! Ghosts of Europa (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block per the evidence given by EEng. Essentially, this block was okay and has since had community consensus behind it. A lot of other blocks of EEng didn't - including one I recall describing as a "piss poor block". So looking at EEng's block log is misleading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've said this before, but we need to be able to edit block logs to erase various kinds of sysop asshattery.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you can - see this test log where I've hidden the most recent entry. However, getting a consensus to do this for a real sysop action is mighty difficult to impossible, unless perhaps it's a block performed by a compromised account. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, people should be able to review them and make their own opinions on them, and decide whether it was "sysop asshattery" or not. Being able to hide blocks without consensus would be much more problematic. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I think we should not find new ways of hiding sysop asshattery. If a block was inappropriate it is normally noted in the log entry for the unblock; users who look only at the length of a block log and not at the actual entries are the problem we can't solve. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, some of us edit under our real names. WP:BLPDEL is policy and block logs aren't an exception.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I genuinely do not understand why choosing to edit under your real name would be an exemption to accountability, or how WP:BLPDEL (a policy about biographical material, not about on-wiki actions) is relevant here. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  A block log is information about a (presumably) living person, and as we are seeing in this thread, errors in that information and in the interpretation of that information can and do lead to measurable harm to the subject. However I agree that editing under one's real name is irrelevant: every account has a real person behind it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Tbh I hadn't really considered that, but you're right. I suppose if there was a way to expunge a block entry from a user's block log but keep it as a redacted entry in the sysop's log of actions, then it would address the problem of inappropriate entries but not at the expense of admin accountability. I have no idea about what would be required technically. I can't see Ritchie333's test redaction, I just get a database error on the link and also when I try to view any log for User:ThisIsaTest, but I can see it in Ritchie's log ([123]). Maybe we already can do this and all that's missing is consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also wasn't aware that was possible for Block logs, until now. I did my own testing[124], and if we just revdel the edit summary but not the performer or target then we can have the log entry stay, redact the block reason, and admins can still see the redaction with an opportunity to add an explanatory note in the RevDel log. Per WP:REVDEL, it actually is mentioned in policy how we should use it. Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or ArbCom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool. It might be useful to add something to this page encouraging use of it as I just described to strike a balance between expunging and accountability, when community consensus exists. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think expanding the scope of log revdels to get rid of actions we don't "like" is not advisable. It runs counter to our general principle of transparency, it can create issues and confusion down the line (consensus can change, and a block that seems redaction-worthy today might not seem redaction-worthy in a decade), and it creates unnecessary procedural overhead (i.e. having to hold mini-RFCs whenever someone thinks a block was bad and needs to be sent down the memory hole).

  That said, I do understand the desire of blockees to not have their logs "stained" by bad actions, but we already have procedures to mitigate that. For blocks that are lifted because they lack merit, admins can and should write descriptive and clear unblock summaries, ideally with links to relevant discussions. For blocks that have already expired and were found to be inappropriate after the fact, WP:AMENDLOG outlines that Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired. Granted, we don't exercise that option often (and perhaps we should do so more frequently), but it is there, and it seems preferable to redacting logs outright. That option should, in my opinion, be reserved for scenarios where the log entry itself contains actually harmful material that can't be dealt with through amendment, e.g. grossly inappropriate attack usernames on the part of the blockee. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree with this. I'll add that, if an admin blocks a user, and another admin deletes the block log, how can we be sure the first admin was the one who did the "bad action"? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because deleting stuff from a block log would only be done after a community block review or an Arbcom decision.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also note that while I really am sympathetic to the desire to correct bad blocks, I'm not really on board with the BLPDEL equivalence. Would we consider the phrase "$Subject once edit-warred on Wikipedia" added to a mainspace BLP worthy of revdel? I'm fairly sure most people's answer would be "no". If we do hold that any inaccurate claim of Wikipedia misconduct is grounds for revdel, then we'd have to constantly delete half of ANI's history: I don't see a meaningful substantive difference between an admin erroneously asserting some sort of policy violation in a block summary, and anyone asserting the same on a talk page or noticeboard. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  The difference is that if you complain about EEng on AN/I, he can reply. He can't reply on his block log.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can easily think of scenarios where they wouldn't be able to respond because they don't actually see the edit in question, even if they have the technical ability to do so. But that's neither here nor there. As noted above, unblock summaries and WP:AMENDLOG already allow for that sort of corrective response, though not by EEng himself. I suppose I just fail to see how "block review ends in redacting log wholesale" is preferable to "community block review ends in one second block (or an unblock) clearly labeling the block as bad while leaving the actual record intact", but I can see significant downsides to log redaction in cases like these.

  In any case, I think it might make sense to move this discussion to WT:REVDEL instead, so as to not clog up this already-lengthy thread. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with moving it.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  FYI (and for the benefit of people reading the thread), I’ve filed phab:T354663 regarding the error when attempting to view the logs. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  So, just to make sure I have this straight: on a technical level we can fix people's block logs without compromising sysop accountability, but on a policy level we're constrained by a conflict between WP:BLPDEL and WP:REVDEL?—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef/ban. EEng's a long-term highly constructive editor. Everyone's temper gets lost once in a while. I tend to agree with EEng's general take on the bot matter; running a bot is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right, and no one has a right to do it nor a right to keep doing it in a way that has negative consequences that can be mitigated by changing the bot code or behavior. Using the word "fucking" isn't automatically a civility problem, and even using it in a way that does seem to be a civility problem doesn't make it a personal attack. Some of the "experience-ist" comments were not well-phrased, but the underlying points in them are largely valid. It is not a constructive approach to take a lecturing attitude toward more experienced editors as if they're cluebags; it really is not constructive to post blather and argumentation that wastes other editors' time; and so on. I don't mean this in a "let him be as incivil as he wants" way. He's already gotten a block for it, and a lot of pillorying, and is on notice that tolerance of further behavior like this is not exactly going to be very high. But we need to be keeping editors, not getting rid of them. Elemimele above is exactly right: "It is very difficult to tell someone that they are behaving in a stupid way without telling them they are stupid, and that is the line that EEng crosses a bit too often. But without robust opposition, really stupid things happen." This is something I deal with on a regular basis, and the fact of the matter is that no one likes being told they're doing a wrong thing, but they need to be told anyway, if they are. Not everyone (including me) have fantastic skills in that kind of communication. But that does not make them a net liability to the project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - My yard stick on these matters goes as such. They (any editor) can insult or personally attack me all they like. As long as they aren't edit warring or causing vandalism? I'm likely not going to seek a block or ban. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  You must be aware that other editors may feel differently about being insulted and attacked, and that the fourth of the five pillars is civility. JM (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I already stated why I'm opposing. PS - I already mentioned earlier, that if the community can't decide on whether an editor should be site-banned or not? The next step will likely be Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• First block was fine, Oppose indef. Comments like "Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses..." are clearly over the line, but not so bad as to warrant an indef. As to EEng catching an indef for a "pattern" of incivility, particularly re: the long list of ANI cases someone pasted above... I was under the impression those cases were all closed, with their discussion points discussed, and the warnings and sanctions (or lack thereof) enforced. Why bring them up en masse, unless in every single one there was some reminder that "if this behavior continues..."? It looks like the most recent one that resulted in ANY action toward EEng was in 2021, where they were blocked for a week. If an editor was blocked for a week in 2021, and has been editing prolifically without catching sanctions for 3 years... then it seems the block has served its purpose, yeah? Why bring it up as a reason to impose a harsher sanction than the current behavior warrants? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Carrite (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Good Block, Oppose Indef, Oppose Ban - The subject is not a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• I support Isabelle Belato's 72-hour block, oppose extension to indef per Johnuniq. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC).
• Endorse block and Support indef block as a preventative measure. As I see it, we will never know how many Wikipedia editors have been driven away by this person. I have carefully read this lengthy post, and find this editor leaves me with a sensation of incredulity. The massive block log combined with the proudly defiant initial Talk page response to this latest block are more than enough evidence for me. The opposes here are unconvincing. An indef is a proper, measured, and overdue step, in my view. We either believe in the fourth of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, or not. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  "As I see it, we will never know how many Wikipedia editors have been driven away by this person." I must confess, I don't know of any editors who have been driven away because of EEng. Can you name one or two? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse Block and Support indef : I probably made this very apparent in my previous statements, but the statements made by him that brought this ANI are so completely and utterly unacceptable. We should not anyone satisfying the status of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, with people claiming 'well he is a prolific editor, stop mobbing him' when we do not know how many editors they have put off the project by his actions, no matter the intention behind them. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse block and support self-requested indef, simply because EEng himself thinks it's a good idea. I'm disappointed to see the "net positive" argument coming up here again; WP:CIVILITY is a fundamental requirement and not something that can be bargained away by making any number of constructive edits. It was true of BrownHairedGirl and it's equally true of EEng. Hopefully EEng will come back with an unblock request that convinces us he can and will stay civil in future. WaggersTALK 12:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see EEng's comment below in which they wrote No, I don't want to be indeffed. (I'd link the diff, but it's not available.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef, Oppose ban I see no reason for this either and it seems to be complete over reaction and pile on for absolutely no reason. No wikipedia people have been driven away by EEng. Nobody has been driven away by bad words at any time in the history of mankind. Such things do no happen. EEng is a solid long-term productive editor, who has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia and will no doubt will do more good work in the future, and he is not going to be sacrified for some supposed "bad words". How thin does people skin really need to get? scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Support indef, oppose ban I can't believe that people are actually saying this editor apologized. Reaffirming your actions while accusing people of something you yourself are guilty of is not a sign of remorse. I would normally disagree with an indef, but this editor has a history of not giving a crap about blocks, so this should give them some time to think about their actions.

  Industrial Insect (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Incivility by City of Silver

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

---

As part of the above thread, City of Silver posted a comment that was accompanied by this edit summary: Is this the new thing? Being gentle on the noticeboard and saving the actual nastiness for the edit summary? Fine, I'll do that, and I'll even ping you because I'm not a coward like you. Would the person reading this out loud for User:The Blade of the Northern Lights please tell them they shouldn't get mad at me because I can read and they can't? This edit summary contains two clear personal attacks: CoS calls Blade a 'coward' and claims that he cannot read. After I pointed out this incivility, CoS responded first with a whataboutism and then by doubling down on the incivility, stating that My words regarding Blade's lack of literacy and bravery are me speaking with pointedness, nothing more. CoS has further sought to justify their behavior by misidentifying criticism of their comments as 'personal attacks'. I believe that CoS's behavior warrants at least a 24-hour block. Failure to take appropriate action will send the message that it is okay to make personal attacks as long as one does so under the guise of opposing incivility by others. If incivility is truly as big of a concern as so many editors above have asserted, then it is imperative that we not allow an editor to engage in blatant personal attacks directly under our noses. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: you've copypasted my words but not the comment and edit summary that I called into question. I believe anyone responding to this, admin or anyone else, won't get the full picture without those two things so please copypaste them in their entirety. City of Silver 06:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary CityofSilver was replying to seems to be What in god's name is this trying to say? by The Blade of the Northern Lights (here), which refers to a comment made by CityofSilver. —El Millo (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You have tried this whataboutism tactic multiple times. If you wish for everyone to read the comment/editsum from Blade that prompted you to abandon your commitment to civility so quickly after you !voted to indef EEng, then you are welcome to copypaste them yourself. But I will have no part in facilitating your red herring. David Eppstein has cogently explained above why Blade's words do not constitute personal attacks, although I doubt you will listen to him. While EEng is guilty of his own incivility, I am not going to stand idly by while one of the editors who seeks to run him out of the community demonstrates that this really isn't about civility at all. Shame on you for seeking the indef of a fellow editor while simultaneously behaving the exact same way. Given that you continue to double-down on your own personal attacks, you should be blocked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Referring to a single negative response as getting dogpiled is absurd. When someone questions what you're trying to say, that might be because your comment was unclear. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, whatever was directed at me isn't worth blocking over. Obviously I don't think what I said is personally attacking anyone, and I thought the response was a bit of an overreaction, but blocking will just turn the heat up even higher (as pretty much all incivility blocks do). And for comments that are pretty low on the scale of things I take personally. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That's very magnanimous of you, but I can't help but wonder what message is being sent to EEng here. As momentum gathers to run him out of town, another editor makes a comment of comparable incivility and then doubles-down repeatedly right under everyone's noses, and the best that can be mustered is a collective 'meh'. I agree that civility blocks often turn up the heat unnecessarily, but we also crossed that threshold with the EEng block. It would seem that either civility matters or it doesn't, but here the community seems to be saying that sometimes we care and sometimes a few cheap shots are okay. Perhaps the moral of the story is that if I want to get someone blocked, I should just keep calling them an unblockable until the community becomes filled with righteous indignation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Come on, if EEng can be blocked for incivility, then so can City of Silver. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of can, but of should. Either way, I've warned the user and asked them to withdraw their personal attack. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support 24-hour block of CityofSilver per Lepricavark. Clear personal attacks, and no indication whatsoever of withdrawing them. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support warning, block if not withdrawn Let's not use incivility as an excuse for more incivility. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 11:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose block for the kind offer to tutor someone they consider illiterate (and because they've had a clean block record since joining, which is commendable and shows that they have a habit of wikilearning without needing to be punished). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  ????? ltbdl (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've pointed out quite a few times on this noticeboard how EEng and editors like him repeatedly getting away with their holier-than-thou unpleasantness encourages other editors to do the same, and then those other editors get blocked. Here we're about to see another example of it. We can't and shouldn't hold any editor accountable for the actions of others, but I've also said before that it would be nice if EEng would care enough to do better. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  EEng is in fact currently blocked, with a high probability that the block will be escalated to an indef. So no, this is not an example of the scenario you have described. If this thread is really about incivility, why is it taking so long to block City of Silver after they doubled down repeatedly on blatant personal attacks? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support block CityofSilvers should not be incivil in an attempt to prove incivility, or think it's OK to do so. Poor judgment there, City. ——Serial 16:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you oppose the block above for incivility despite that user having many previous blocks that didn't work, but support this block for incivility despite having no previous blocks? JM (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support equal-term block to EEng, whatever that turns out to be, for being far more incivil, equally unapologetic, and calling for an indef of EEng for incivility, all in the same thread. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Did you type and bold the wrong username? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, they're saying that they think this user's block should be equal to the other block. JM (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, my near-native English delinquency :)
  Well, while it does seem on the same level as the comments on Cewbot, it shouldn’t be of equal magnitude because City didn’t do uncivil responses on a closure review or any other incidents in the past. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe, but I haven't seen EEng baying for indef blocks or bans in the same thread as committing the same sort of infraction that is supposedly ban-worthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• City of Silver was incivil to me, as well, and appears to have doubled down. I certainly won't oppose a block of equal length to EEng's block, but what I really want to do is to call for deescalation, in lieu of boomeranging. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I had hoped that this discussion would quiet down, but, Tryptofish, how's that working out for you? EEng has posted on his talk page in what I find to be a convincing way, that he realizes his mistakes, takes responsibility, and sincerely wants to fix things. I haven't seen any comparable self-awareness from City of Silver. So I support a 72-hour block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment You don't get to say how important civility is, and then in the next breath call another editor illiterate and a coward. That's a clear, blatant personal attack and it also isn't the first time or even the second that CoS has been called out for insulting edit summaries, and a brief glance at his user talkpage shows a bunch of other examples of weirdly aggressive edit summaries that seem completely unprovoked.[125][126][127][128][129] A 72-hour block would be well deserved, and I would endorse it if another admin issued one. I considered doing it myself, but it seems like that would needlessly escalate the drama at this point instead of deescalating. I'd rather give CoS the chance to review his own conduct and hopefully apologize, like EEng has done. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any blocks, as editor has a block-free record. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  What bearing is that supposed to have? If anything they should have one instead of getting off scott-free. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't endorsed the other editor's block, nor supported any site-ban. They can both throw personal attacks at me & I still wouldn't call for a block or ban. As long as neither editor is 'edit-warring', then I'm likely not going to complain. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, it was a bit tone-deaf, but a trouting is probably a better recourse. - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per David Eppstein. This edit summary was much less civil and much less justified than EEng's comments; while hypocrisy per se isn't a good reason for a block, it certainly seems relevant that CoS should be blocked according to the standards they support. --JBL (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I concur with David Eppstein's views on blocking and length thereof and the hypocrisy-related reason for it. There's a big difference between EEng saying things like "you fucking geniuses", implying they're doing something stupid (which everyone does from time to time), versus CoS directly calling someone a coward and an illiterate. I would have let the second part slide in its original wording, as then-interpretable as a suggestion that they're having momentary reading-comprehension issues with regard to particular material, which again everyone does from time to time. But CoS came back with an unmistakable "lack of literacy" accusation, so we're done here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose no need for any block to protect the project or stop disruption. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Similar incivility by ASmallMapleLeaf

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

---

We have a second case of "another editor makes a comment of comparable incivility and then doubles-down repeatedly right under everyone's noses", as someone put it above. Up near the very top of the EEng megathread, ASmallMapleLeaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped off with this personal attack:

(Without deep analysis) @EEng sounds like a very nice person. A definite warning here (if not a block). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Leprickvark called it out as one, and ASmallMapleLeaf's response was to claim this was an "accusation" by Leprickavark (plus some strange reference to Cremastra's viewpoint).

I also I called it out as at least uncivil and hypocritical: EEng was brought here for attacky ad hominem sarcasm, and ASmallMapleLeaf responded with their own attacky ad hominem sarcasm in the course of asking for a warning or block for EEng. WP:BOOMERANG clearly applies.

Then it got much worse, with ASmallMapleLeaf (hereafter ASML) doubling down and using ridiculous deflection techniques to try to make excuses and even blame-shift onto other editors. I don't think this should slide, because the longer it goes on the more recalcitrant ASmallMapleLeaf becomes and the more divorced they get from understanding WP:CIVIL policy. I had actually suggested early on that maybe ASmallMapleLeaf didn't really intend a personal attack, but their own vociferous defense of their supposed right to make one, pretending it is "criticizing the behavior", proves otherwise.

• ASML's first line of "defense" is this (put into boldface and italics as if talking to an idiot): Did you miss the 'without deep research' portion of my comment?
  • No one missed it, and it's damning not exculpatory. It basically resolves to 'I popped off with uncivil sarcasm about someone (ANIed for uncivil sarcasm) before I even had any idea what I was talking about.' ASML should have looked into the matter first and posted later if at all.
• Next in ASML's same response was: I believed he [EEng] was another WP:NOTHERE account ...
  • That by definition means ASML was assuming bad faith about another editor.
• Followed by: ... before checking block logs after making this comment, which should be quite telling of his behavior described here.
  • Detailed analysis above of EEng's block log and ANI records shows numerous bad blocks and a lot of threads in which EEng's name was mentioned without any consensus of wrongdoing. So, ASML didn't actually check the blog log and related material, they glanced at it, noticed it was detailed without looking at the details, and leapt to a bad-faith assumption again.
• The next block of defensive material from ASML starts with: As for me being uncivil and 'laughable'
  • The word "laughable" appears nowhere in the entire EEng mega-thread except ASML's own post. ASML is just making stuff up to engage in playing-the-victim antics.
• Next: I actually published it [ASML's attack] knowing another edit[or] at ANI had said it (followed by a quote from an old ANI about some other editor).
  • This is the worst sort of excuse-making and blame-shifting of all time, directly equivalent to the schoolyard monkey-see-monkey-do "reasoning" of 'I smacked Jenny in the face cuz I saw Bobby do it'. No one ever gets a free pass on such grounds.
  • ASML also pinged the poster of that attack and the editor they attacked (rather than linking to the old ANI discussion in which the post appeared), as if to draw them back in to generate noise to distract away from ASML's own behavior.
• ASML next turns censorious: I suggest you strike your comment.
  • No one is going to strike a comment that correctly calls out counter-to-policy behavior just because the poorly behaving party feels sore about being criticized for it.
• ASML continues with I believe mine [comment] still stands as criticising the behaviour that brought this [action] in the first place ...
  • As Lepricavark quickly pointed out, ASML criticized no behavior at all, and was pure name-calling of another editor as "[not] a very nice person" through sarcastic reversal. It's an ad hominem personal attack about the person not commentary on behavior.
• Here's a real doozy: ... from a unique prospective [sic] that this was a new user.
  • So, ASML's actual intent was to verbally attack EEng because ASML thought EEng was a noob. ASML is clearly someone either unaware of the WP:BITE principle or actively defying it, and it's arguably blockworthy on its own.
• An obviously misinformed view, but a view that [is] nonetheless relevant ...
  • Self-contradictory hand-waving.
• ... to someone with a long block log.
  • Again, ASML is blindly assuming that long log = rationale to attack and pile on, without any regard to the facts behind any blocks.
• After all that nonsense was refuted, ASML came back with: Yeah, I am not being incivil in the slightest from my POV ...
  • This is the WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactic combined with the invincible ignorance fallacy.
• ... you seem be ignoring points made by me.
  • ASML made no points of any kind, only really poor attempts at dodging.
• You say I'm criticising him as a person. No I'm very clearly criticising his comments that were presented here by the user who reported him.
  • More ICANTHEARYOU and attempts to shift blame onto someone else.
• This is followed by: based off the comments brought up here. It's criticising the comments as uncivil
  • More ICANTHEARYOU repetition of the false claim of criticing behavior/comments instead of the person, again on the excuse of what someoene else did.
• ASML also tried to use EEng's own "you've really pissed me off" and "What the fuck is the urgency" original comments as excuses for ASML's behavior (which they are not and could never be, no matter what EEng said), but these are not even the EEng comments that the community considers to have been transgressive. (The first is an expression of frustration, at being treated like an idiot who doesn't know how the watchlist works by the bot operator, and the second is a completely valid question that simply had an unnecessary and heat-raising word in it; the reason EEng is at ANI is the "you two fucking geniuses" comment, which is not actually any worse that ASML's "sounds like a very nice person" sarcasm). That ASML doesn't even understand this much of what is going on is troubling, and suggests their only reason for participation in this proceeding is an excuse to attack someone.

The above pile of "Not Me" blame-shifting needs to be shut down firmly, and it being ongoing rather than old news suggests a block. "I am not being incivil in the slightest" is not a sensible position to take when multiple editors are telling you otherwise, and trying to make it seem like everyone else's fault but the poster's is not on. Nor is declaring an intent to verbally attack noobs, to seek blocks/warnings based on no actual examination of the history or other efforts to find out what's going on, or to tell everyone that you can't understand the difference between an ad hominem attack and a behavioral critique. If ASmallMapleLeaf really doesn't understand (which is entremely unlikely), they need to be brought to understand quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: Something I didn't catch until just now: ASML's account was registered only a week ago, with a total of 85 edits (far too many of them at noticeboards), yet ASML knows all about WP jargon like "checking block logs" and "strike that comment" (and WP:ROPE [130], and WP:UNBLOCKABLE and 1RR and 0RR [131], and "This looks like a content dispute" [132], and "IP editor" [133], and NOTHERE [134]), makes arguments about civility and NPA policy (albeit incorrect ones), has a prejudice against new users, cites old ANI discussions, claims "I have spectated ANI for a long time as a pastime" [135], when actually editing content is drawn to subjects surrounded by heated controversy (Palestine, Somalia, Syria, states with limited recognition, hotbeds of armed conflict), uses the old-fashioned {{Talkback}} template [136][137], tries to engage in non-admin closures [138], cites WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS and WP:BATTLEGROUND by shortcut and threatens people with blocks [139], and so on. This is all very "interesting".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, another editor attempted to raise concerns at ASML's talk page and was reverted with an invitation to bring it to ANI. Personally, I'd support a NOTHERE indef unless ASML can demonstrate that they are not just here for the controversy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Re ASML's "You are free to bring this issue up at ANI" flippancy: "Be careful what you wish for." This is now at least three editors objecting to ASML's attack on EEng.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Be careful what you wish for": I don't find that a pleasant, SMcCandlish. A hint of grave dancing, even. Please be at least civil, I already stated I don't want to engage here anymore. Il accept an indef if it's there is a solid consensuses my actions were wrong. I am here to build a encyclopedia, and so il leave if I'm agreed not to be good at it. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was not seeking an indef, but the same sort of short-term block EEng already received and which is likely for City of Silver for the same kind of reason. I generally don't seek an indef unless someone is clearly a vandal, noxious PoV pusher, spammer, or other person here to abuse the site for unencyclopedic purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Them having less-than-100-edits, with all that, is why they didn't get a warning like City of Silver. And while I learned that fact from you, you are not responsible for my action, and are of course free to speak at their defense on their talk page. But a tit-for-tat block didn't make sense to me. Please no more comments on the now-closed thread/s. El_C 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

As an aside.... EEng's talk page size (again)

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

---

As a complete aside, could we get consensus that EEng's talk page is generally too large and we should take community action to archive it down to 75k per WP:TALKCOND "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or has numerous resolved or stale discussions". I mentioned this previously at ANI and we all had a good chuckle over EEng's talk page being visible from space, but it's not being regularly archived enough to be a manageable size. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Let's not. WP:OWNTALK gives users wide discretion over the archiving of their talk page, and there is far more harm in discussing EEng's archiving habits than there is in EEng's archiving habits. —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I have said before, the size makes it cumbersome and difficult to read on a smartphone. The guidelines state, "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier.". Putting up artificial barriers to non-desktop editors makes communication and collaboration harder, not easier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  It works perfectly well on smartphones unless you use the "mobile" interface, which indeed is making it harder to communicate. Hooray for User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/unmobilePlus.js and the adaptive skins (Monobook), which make it easy to read Wikipedia on smartphones. I don't think we should use the brokenness of the "mobile" interface as an argument for doing anything other than fixing the "mobile" interface. —Kusma (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  "It works perfectly well on smartphones" Not using the Desktop interface on Safari under iOS, in my opinion - it is still common to get "This page reloaded because a problem repeatedly occurred" messages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Kusma, I am currently on a fiber-optic broadband connection, and EEng's talk page has a noticeable wait time before it's usable to me. Admittedly this is partly because my gadgets make it slower; but it's really the only page for which that's true. I suggest that if a personal talk page is slower to load than ANI, some recalibration is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not just smartphones. On this desktop, it froze the page for several seconds trying to load, and then several seconds again when I scrolled to the bottom to read the section about this ANI. It's beyond ridiculous how large the page is, and it needs archived whether EEng wants it or not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't being long as hell the whole point of EEng's talk page? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, He says " Welcome to "the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space."" But if people are struggling to read it, that's real problem and not really acceptable as it makes it hard to collaborate. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Jokes shouldn't take longer to load than to laugh at, it's more than time to find a better court jester. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 16:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really care what OWNTALK says, having a talk page that is ~1MB is inconsiderate toward a large number of our users: I've had trouble loading it myself on dozens of occasions. I've told him to archive it at multiple points when it got particularly obnoxious [140], [141] (and to be fair, he did undertake to do so [142]). I do wish he'd set up a bot, but as is evidenced above, EEng doesn't love being told what to do. And I say that as someone who tremendously appreciates what he brings to the project. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment, and edit conflict) same

  i tried loading his user and talk pages on every possible layout/device combination i have (mobile and desktop on mobile and desktop, plus mobile app), and every possible option gave all three of my devices (good strong phone, weak work pc, currently-not-very-built-but-still-decently-strong gaming pc) a separate cardiac heart attack. the speed at which it loads doesn't matter that much in my opinion, just the fact that three separate devices struggled to load it in the first place

  while it is pretty funny, i do support trimming it down a bit so it's at most visible from atop the world's shortest dinaric cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm running on a rather ancient laptop right now because of a failure on my daily driver, I think it's a Pentium Core Duo 2 with 4GB RAM. It can run Windows 10 but it cannot load EEng's talk page. In the past I've been in trouble here for starting a thread about EEng and then being unable to notify him because the page would not load, again using a bog-standard desktop browser. It's too long. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  You sort of wonder if that's the point of it, now: that he maintains such a giant talk page to deliberately make it difficult to communicate directly with him. Ravenswing 16:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:AGF. Try not to cast aspertions on someone who can't respond (or anyone, for that matter). — Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The last time I brought it up (the last time I couldn't edit it) he said that he manually archives it periodically but it had been a while. While he does seem to be proud of its size, I've never seen anything to suggest he's keeping it large to prevent people from editing, and I expect he'd gladly prune it if someone asked him to. I also agree that casting aspersions in a discussion about civility is, well, a choice, Serial Number 54129. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  People have been asking him to prune it for quite some time now, for the good it's done. I don't think "gladly" is so much a question as "if at all." Ravenswing 22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enforce an archive bot - I mostly don't like to suggest controlling any editors' talkpage. But, I am a believer in them having an archive bot, so such talkpages don't make it near impossible to communicate directly with an editor. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• ...As a complete aside, could we get consensus that EEng's talk page is generally too large What Ritchie333 really means is, there's no way I could get a consensus to even propose this usually, but now the guy's on the ropes, I can put the boot in. Nice one. ——Serial 16:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Again, please WP:AGF, especially since it's not the first time this talk page issue is discussed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please do not even attempt to patronise me, and meanwhile, go throw your accusations of ABF elsewhere in the above thread—where it's actually needed. ——Serial 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies if this came out as patronizing, or personal in any way. I feel like it's just a healthy reminder for everyone to not immediately jump to bad-faith interpretations. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't at all patronizing. What Ritchie333 really means is, there's no way I could get a consensus to even propose this usually, but now the guy's on the ropes, I can put the boot in. Nice one is plainly assuming bad faith. There was no problem with someone calling it out. JM (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  And, luckily enough, a perfect representation of the facts: there is absolutely no tangible connection with any of EEng's behavioral issues and the length of their talk page; thus there was absolutely no pertinent reason for raising the issue. If anything, I would classify it as having an element of WP:GRAVEDANCING. It was wholly irrelevant and unnecessary, so why raise it when his critics are gathered in the same room? (Hypothetical question: no unconvincing reply is necessary nor a convincing one possible.) ——Serial 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  And what’s wrong with that? If you’re saying that ANI is the room of EEng critics, then obviously something’s going on. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  there is absolutely no tangible connection with any of EEng's behavioral issues

  I disagree. For one, it demonstrates that EEng values getting his own laughs over community norms. For another, it's impacting users ability to view the conversation about this ANI on his Talk page, so they can make up their own minds. The extreme size of that page is directly related to these behavioral issues under discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree with your point of it being relevant to the topic, I also understand how it could've been interpreted as an attempt to attack EEng from another angle by splitting off in a new discussion, although I don't believe this was the actual intention. But yes, both should be analyzed together, and the talk page issue is more of a symptom of the greater issues at hand. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is not what I mean at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enforce an archive bot, I usually prefer to enforce WP:OWNTALK and let users decide how they use their talk page, however if it gets to the point that it impedes on communication by making it difficult, or nearly impossible, then I do feel we should enforce an archive bot. We're concerned about those with less than decent internet connections elsewhere, why not here? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 17:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, with regard to Eeng's TP. I'm still trying to figure out where I land on the broader issues of Eeng's conduct above: I am trying to thread the needle between the fact that I can't turn a blind eye to some of the conduct reported and my belief that Eeng is one of the more uniquely valuable people within our community culture. But I am unequivocal in my support for mandating archiving of his talk page. It's an issue about which I've raised my own concerns with him before (and he did at the time engage in some clean-up at that time, it is worth noting), but there needs to be a simple longterm solution. Let's be honest: the only reason that WP:OWNTALK reads as it does with regard to talk page length is because no one else (to my knowledge) has ever pushed the community's patience on the matter a fraction as far as Eeng. More to the point, within WP:OWNTALK (well before the language granting user's significant autonomy in maintaining their talk page, comes this overarching proviso: "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier." Clearly Eeng's approach to archive his TP runs very much in the opposite direction.
  This is an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue, plain and simple: those expressing that the page loads fine on this or that niche piece of hardware are either missing a very obvious point or feigning being obtuse about it; an user's talk page should be accessible for it's intended purposes (discussions and notices in service of the project, not lively discussion and an art project to thumb one's nose at conformity) for the average user, not the one who has cracked the code on just the right software and hardware, in conjunction with TB/s bandwdith. For that matter, I know for a fact that I have loaded that talk page on at least five different operating systems, at least as many distinct browsers, and on hardware ranging from high-end to aging, inclusive of PCs and phones, and I can tell you there are always issues: it's merely a matter of whether it is bad or worse.
  When you consider that a non-trivial number of processes require users to add notifications to Eeng's talk page, it is clearly unreasonable to allow the equivalent of an (illustrated) Tolstoy novel to stay live in that space. Personally, I think it would be ludicrous if we would have to make an overt change to OWNTALK to set a firm upper threshold just to wrangle one user's run-away conduct in this regard, but if that's what we have to do, let's do it.
  In a way, this whole issue is a microcosm of Eeng's issues (and I say this as someone who can't help but respect and like the guy to an extent that belies the number of times I've found myself debating basic canons of editor behaviour with him): in testing the limits of individual user conduct (be it with the length of the talk page, or off-colour humour, or "bad words", or sheer bluntness) in ways that he seems to regard as taking a stance against pressure towards conformity, he often fails to realize that he is generating pressure to tighten those very same restrictions, for everyone. It's a difficult position for me, because I think we could use more users with some of Eeng's qualities, but I also think we need Eeng himself to be just a tad less Eeng. Helpful commentary, I know... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Add a firm statement to WP:OWNTALK that pages reaching 100K raw byte size (I'm feeling generous, & there are all those Xmas/NY greetings) should be archived or otherwise reduced. I may say more generally that I'm rather astonished by the different treatment of EEng here, compared to two other much ruder & aggressive (imo) long-term editors currently higher up the page. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  WTF??

  I archive my talk page regularly and quarterly and it still regularly reaches roughly that size.

  That is not a problematic size. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Calm down! Well, 150K or 200K, whatever. Personally, I like to keep mine less than 80K. It's not just the actual number of bytes, but the sheer hassle of finding a section on a long page, if you want to return to it. Until you just archived it (from 110K to 15K) that was inconvenient on your talk, not that I ever look at it normally. Talking of which, this page here is over 500K, which is a complete pain. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  As someone who personally likes to archive much more often (at like 40k byte size), I agree that 100k isn't a problematic size and that users should have some amount of leeway in their archiving (although it starts to be too much when a non-negligible portion of users have difficulties accessing it, but that's way over 100k). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Enforce an archive bot per above. If a talk page is too large to use, it needs to be reduced to a useable size. JM (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any action. Users should be free to determine the archiving policies of their own messages. We should not be the thought police, going into others' emails and telling them what to keep and what to put on a back shelf. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  What's your solution if I want to post on EEng's talk page and get a Safari iOS error, "This page cannot be loaded because a problem repeatedly occurred?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with thought police, and everything to do with purposefully allowing the page to drag down people's browsers when they try to interact with EEng. The limit to freedom is when it starts affecting the community, and this negatively affects the community's ability to communicate with EEng on his talk page, or even just to view the discussion occurring there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  If your browser cannot handle a 1 Mb file, you need a better browser. That is tiny compared to most files that browsers routinely handle. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  from my limited knowledge on html5, it's a certain amount of raw text, but some of that text asks to load external things like images, gifs, funny borders, or different fonts and text sizes, resulting in a bit more than 1mb of data having to be loaded. add any wacky gadgets you might have that have to be loaded all the time, and it's a lot for a lot of devices to juggle around at once

  if a talk page gives so many people so much trouble, it might be something to worry about cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Loading a 1 Mb image is not at all the same as loading a 1 Mb talk page with tens of thousands of HTML elements. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  1Mb is the text size, but EEng's talk page is full of media and CSS hacks. I don't know how to reliably measure a web page's memory imprint, but when I loaded a separate Firefox process and loaded just the talk page, it reported memory usage a bit over 300Mb. Besides, telling people that they need newer equipment to edit flies in the face of Wikipedia's "free encyclopedia for everyone" mission. Many users access and/or edit Wikipedia from connections like dialup or slow mobile networks or underfunded shared library systems that many of us would have considered painfully slow 25 years ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  More to the point, people increasingly only use smartphones and tablets over laptops and desktops, with substantially less computing power, and since they “just work” for pretty much everything in the modern world, anything that has a performance impact is problematic and should be corrected. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I do know how to measure a page's footprint, and 300Mb is about right. For reference, this is about the same memory usage as a tab with a facebook feed in it on my PC. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  checked on my good pc, 446 mb on my end

  for context, pizza tower is a 257.71 mb pile of files cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think there might be something wrong with your configurations? I just checked on my end, and it's only 120mb. Pizza Tower, in comparison, is 20 mb - I'm running standard Firefox. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  must be my gadgets then, because i use a few of those

  and as it turns out, 446 was lowballing it, i haven't seen anything under 500 now. god i wish i could blame chrome

  as for pizza tower, i meant all the steam files for it, not the act of running the game itself, which is a lot less than that at any given time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I actually misunderstood in a totally different way, and assumed you were referring to the Pizza Tower article… BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I thought you meant the article and I was really, really confused ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  As a devout patron of c:Commons:Convenient Discussions, when I open that talk page, it loads for so darn long I have to manually disable it and edit the page text like a caveman. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  My Chrome browser (which is up to date) actually froze momentarily and asked if I wanted to kill the page. It finished loading after another two minutes with Convenient Discussions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  What a shitty non-response. Try actually listening to people who are having problems on multiple different platforms, instead of just dismissing the issue out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Erm, could you tune it down a bit? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but an admin giving a snarky you need a better browser response in the face of all these reports is incredibly condescending. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Both you and David could've done better here: incivility is not an excuse for incivility. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support archiving. WP:UOWN gives a lot of leeway to users in their own userspace, but it also says: "pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user." I imagine we'd look similarly dimly on an editor who through code or script partially disabled access to their talk page. Talk pages exist to facilitate communication. Ritchie333 If you start a formal proposal to change UOWN, will you ping me? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Update: Through email, EEng has asked me to temp-unblock him so that he can archive his talk page himself rather than getting it done badly by someone else. But since the triggering incident for this thread (a discussion of Cewbot's behavior) also involved me, I think I am too WP:INVOLVED to do that. Maybe someone else could? Alternatively, we could close this sub-thread as moot: either he eventually gets unblocked (after which he has promised to archive) or he isn't in which case there is no good reason to demand archiving. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you are too involved to do that. EEng should be able to figure out how to set up an auto-archiving bot for a single run and then remove the code, and only needs to edit his talk page to do that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  The only person that request should be directed to is Isabelle Belato. nableezy - 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support archiving. WP:UOWN is not a suicide pact. We've always decided the limits of user preferences are drawn when it inhibits collaboration and discussion (hence where we've blocked users for their signatures.) Eeng is intelligent enough to have figured out this is an issue; he just doesn't care. If he doesn't want to be treated like a child, any time before now would have been the opportunity to show it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Not helpful. I just knew that someone would eventually propose this, but I didn't expect it to be someone I respect as much as I respect Ritchie. If we're going to make this requirement, let's make it a requirement for every user talk page of this length. But if it's going to be done just to EEng, it reeks of punishment-because-we-can. It's just escalating an ANI thread that is far past its sell-by date. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Out of curiosity, what other user talk pages are of this length? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Since you pinged me, I should post in reply, but I think it's best if I do not name anyone. But I've seen some. (And since I have this opportunity, I'll also say, facetiously, that the length of the ANI thread is getting pretty close.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. EEng is the only one I've seen so I was just curious. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to bother counting but the database report says there are like 100 user talk pages longer than EEng's (many are subpages). Levivich (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the non-subpages are inactive user talk pages that have been piling up newsletters, some of which blocked. I don't know if there's any other "legitimate" user talk page longer than EEng's. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  None larger from what I can see, but some that are just as large. I'm fine with imposing a hard limit on other users. I simply wasn't aware of other users. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 00:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  currently, this thread has around 4 less comments than their talk page has threads

  that's kind of scary cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not helpful regardless of Ritchie's intentions in filing this, it seems awfully opportunistic to seize a moment when EEng is already under siege to raise this perennial complaint again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose We cannot enforce user talk page archiving vi ANI pique, if you change this sort of thing then there should be a discussion held at WP:TPG or the village pump about a policy enactment. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Not helpful due to timing, per Tryptofish. Remsense留 02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Zaathras; if this an issue we should impose a general solution and not dog pile on EEng while he’s in the dog house - it feels a little too close to WP:GRAVEDANCING to me, even though that was obviously not the intention. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Zaathras and BilledMammal, either we decide on a standard for everyone or we don't. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support/Enforce Those citing OWNTALK should note it states "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." This has come up much more recently than the 2021 report opened above. EENG has been fully aware their talkpage causes issues for others for years, and citing laziness at this point is entirely risible. Leaving an easiliy resolved problem like that around for years is an active choice, yet EEng has specifically asked others not to expect "miracles" regarding the talkpage. With a few lines of code, the miracle can happen. Quite happy for this to be a general rule at whatever point between the 100k suggested above and the current causing my browser to lag. We already split out large discussions from village pumps into their own subpages, the concept being proposed is not novel. CMD (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the avoidance of doubt, noting here too that I oppose this. Under the present circumstances, the proposal leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though I understand it was put forward with good intentions. EEng's talk page being unusually long has nothing to do with the reasons for his block. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Consider postponing action on this until EEng is unblocked in the future. User talk:EEng is a problem and needs fixing but there's no rush to resolve this issue. After EEng is back with us, revisit the issue. Any action should be generic and not just apply to EEng's page. I know this 286 kB version of User:Aman.kumar.goel's talk page was a problem until an admin told him to downsize it. Perhaps an RfC elsewhere rather than here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this pointless WP:GRAVEDANCING. Ritchie is generally a sensible editor, but I'll note that no attempt was made to ask EEng to archive his page before bringing it here trying to have a community-based sanction placed to force him to do so. At User talk:EEng he did mention that he opened this sub-discussion after doing so, and EEng immediately said he was willing to archive it once his block expires (or if he were to be unblocked temporarily, which is unlikely to happen). In the above-linked thread of this same thing happening 3 years ago, Ritchie again went to ANI to force the issue before trying to just ask EEng, and EEng immediately agreed to archive. Unless he refuses to once unblocked, this discussion is moot. Sometimes I think we need something like WP:BEFORE but for the dramaboards. It would only need one sentence, something like "Hey, have you tried talking to them first?". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Civility restriction for EEng

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

---

How about this? (Copied verbatim from WP:EDR#HiLo48)

The community authorizes an indefinite civility restriction for EEng. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.

An indef or community ban doesn't seem likely to gain consensus based on my quick reading of the discussion, but the doubling down after the block and the litany of ANI threads listed by Thebiguglyalien indicates that there's clearly a long-term pattern that one 72-hour block is unlikely to solve. This proposal would prevent the sort of unilateral single-admin unblocks that supporters of a CBAN have cited as a reason for supporting a ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callitropsis (talk • contribs)

• Support as proposer, reluctantly. This seems like the sort of unhappy compromise that's likely to just kick things further down the road, but it's binding and splits the difference between those calling for a CBAN and those who say that a 72-hour block is sufficient. To paraphrase Robert McClenon in a previous thread, I personally think civility restrictions are kind of ridiculous because, in theory, everyone is required to follow WP:CIVIL, but from an outsider's view this entire situation also seems kind of ridiculous so maybe it's par for the course. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 20:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a good compromise. A 72-hour block isn't enough to address chronic behavior, but I understand why people wouldn't want an indefinite block either. This seems like a way to let him help around productively while keeping an eye on the civility issue. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Changing to Oppose as I've been convinced by some commenters below. The point is that it's a pretty toothless proposal, which basically amounts to the status quo of "breaking rules has consequences". ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per ChaoticEnby. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose per ChaoticEnby and EEng. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. This !vote should not be construed as dropping my support for an indef block or a siteban. JM (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support worth trying something, since the status quo clearly ain't doing the trick. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I'll support this, too. I can see ways this might turn wrong (does it really make sense to talk about repeat offenses? and I worry about people baiting him), but I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good enough. Having this hang over his head might help EEng do better. I'll also say that it might be productive to consider partial bans from places where he pretty much always shoots himself in the foot. For example, he attracts a lot of ill will from his quasi-humorous posts on ANI and other dramaboards. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to move to oppose, but given EEng's self-requested indef (so to speak), I no longer see this as such a good idea. I also agree with some comments below, about how these restrictions can be problematic. But I still want to leave this on the table, at least, for consideration when he gets "back". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a new-ish user, in case my perspective is helpful. I don't think a restriction that says "the rules apply to you" is ridiculous; it's a way to assuage our concerns that they don't! Many of us seem to feel that EEng is held to lower standards than other editors. The first two replies seemed to suggest we shouldn't bother complaining about him. Wikipedia is very intimidating; it feels like there are a million rules and quasi-rule essays and unwritten expectations. I'm nervous about even posting here, because I worry I'm expected to have X edits or Y Good Articles first! I've found the expectations of Civility, Assuming Good Faith, and encouraging Boldness to be crucial in getting me over these hurdles, and I think people are right to worry that an implicit norm of "If you're popular/funny/productive enough, you can insult and disdain people" will scare away new editors, like me. We should reject that idea explicitly. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a way to keep EEng's positive contributions while mitigating the incivility concerns. Setting this restriction will show if EEng can still contribute long-term without being uncivil, while also saving time and discussion if he is uncivil again in the future, with the course of action for such a situation already set in place. —El Millo (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Context The user himself has stated the following on his talk page (see the comment reposted above by Aaron Liu): I think at this point it's best I get the indefinite block. JM (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see the need for "compromise," and there is nothing in this measure that an admin cannot already do, at will, without our input or leave. We have had a long history to show us that, ultimately, not only does EEng not give a damn what we think in re: civility, but he's said as much outright. Ravenswing 22:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ravenswing but please either support or withdraw your claim that "not only does EEng not give a damn what we think in re: civility, but he's said as much outright" [143]. This is a very serious personal attack. (In the old days I would have stated my indignation in much stronger terms, but since my lobotomy I'm much calmer.)
— [[User:EEng 23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)]]

Copied from his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Ravenswing. I don't think this proposed sanction is very meaningful. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that "civility parole" (as it used to be called when it was in vogue in the mid to late 00s) is bullshit and has consistently proven ineffective. It didn't work with Giano, TRM, Betacommand, BrownHairedGirl or anyone else that I can recall. All it does is create ongoing resentment with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their head indefinitely, while giving others an excuse to needle/provoke them and block when they snip back (which gets used as further evidence to avoid removing the restriction). Block him if the incivility is causing disruption, ask him to tone it down if it isn't, but this sort of half measure isn't going to work. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Wordsmith. These measures don't work and are easily gamed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are two types of compromises: those that make everyone happier and those that makes everyone angrier. This definitely fits into the latter for reasons brilliantly explained by The Wordsmith above. Not to hate on the proposers, however, this is more of a mock-up solution masquerading as a real one; it will essentially just worsen the issue by creating unneeded angst while incentivizing the unscrupulous to bait them. Literally just indeff as stated in my !vote above; that's objectively the easiest and logical solution to this. — Knightoftheswords 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant. There is already such a civility restriction that applies to all editors, and to say that EEng has already committed repeat offenses would be an understatement. Measures like these imply that incivility is a privilege that we're taking away. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as stupid. As a senior editor, EEng should know that WP:CIV exists, and that they need to follow it as a core Wikipedia policy. From memory, there was an AN/I thread a while ago about EEgn's incivility. They should be well aware that their incivility is a problem, but has not taken any steps towards resolving it. A harsher restriction is required in this case. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break 2 (EEng)

• The bot issue needs to be decided via RFC, because it's a sitewide issue that does not affect just one user, and it should not be argued (with escalating vehemence) on usertalk (or on ANI). Unless the protestors decide to drop the issue or have found a resolution, an RFC should be opened. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's a discussion currently at WT:TPG#User talk page size. And I agree that ANI is not the right way to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That discussion is not about the bot. it's about user talkpage size. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I’m confused, what is the bot? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  One proposal is to have an existing archival bot template applied to pages like EEng's that are excessively large, if the user does not agree to archive it themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but wouldn't that be the same as "about user talkpage size"? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• The bot issue is Cewbot. Well documented in the threads above. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  RfCs should only be used when there’s no consensus in a regular discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, given that the "regular discussion" attempt with the bot operators in question led to this ANI mess, and the botops did not (that I know of at this point) change what the bot is doing, that seems ripe for an RfC after all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's not true, Aaron Liu. Issues that are negatively affecting every user's watchlist should be handled via a Centralized Discussion RFC, so that all users can see it and weigh in. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support EEng. This is absurd. EEng has a certain sense of humour that might offend those without one. It's a welcome and age-old contribution to places that sometimes take themselves too seriously on en.WP. EEng is deeply knowledgeable in matters like style—I say that even if I don't always agree with him. I urge admins to close this thread now. Tony (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can see both sides of the argument, but I definitely agree that this ANI discussion has become unproductive. As this discussion, ironically, accumulates more and more arbitrary breaks, to where it resembles a certain user talk page, as just above, I link to another discussion that was already linked but has been lost in the tl;dr, and as editors continue to demand an indef, apparently unaware that, fully a day ago, EEng posted on his talk page, and I think it's been copied over to the tl;dr here, that he is self-requesting an indef, this whole mess here had become a time sink. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Calling people targeted by such incivility "those without a sense of humour" is not a good take. I also don't think the admins should be urged to close the thread when there's no consensus, possibly unless it's because Eeng has been given the indef that he himself has requested; in that case. JM (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  In a reversal of the trend that I perceived in the early stages of this thread, it has become apparent that the community as a whole is not persuaded toward a consensus in support of an indef block. We can continue to leave this megathread open to generate heat despite the ever-diminishing odds of any kind of consensus, or we can close it down and let EEng serve out the block (which, despite all the dire predictions, was never actually lifted). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Last I heard, Eeng explicitly wanted an indef. JM (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  He (assuming that’s the correct pronoun) said that he prefers the indef over a civility restriction that puts a target on his back. You can’t use such words in lieu of an argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that is correct. With the civility restriction off the table, we should not assume that EEng wishes to be indeffed, especially as that there is not developing consensus in favor of that outcome. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is completely important: prefers the indef over a civility restriction that puts a target on his back – That's very, very different from the claim made above, at least twice by two different people, that he "requested an indef". That's a serious distortion, but it could easily affect the outcome here by encouraging people to post bogus "Indef because he wants it anyway" !votes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Serious distortion? One can wikilawyer over the meaning of the way that he said it, but here is the actual diff of what he said: [144]. He actually never said the he "would prefer" an indef over the restriction. What he said was that it "will be more effective". Oh, and all that was also copied over to here at ANI, but apparently has also gotten lost in the tl;dr. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point. So, he said that this has wasted everyone’s time So I think at this point it's best I get the indefinite block and then said that an indef would be more effective than a civility restriction for reasons I’ve said above, and then prepares for a wikibreak in case he gets blocked. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  It is starting to seem as though some of the most vocal detractors here are determined to have EEng gone by any means necessary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, especially since we can resolve this by waiting... one day for the block to run out. If EEng still wants an indef, he can clarify tomorrow. And if he does request one, does our consensus over whether to grant it even matter? Would an admin actually refuse his request because we didn't push hard enough for it? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I said above, the problem isn't that he's a court jester, it's that he's doing an awful job at it. There's got to be better humor out there than basic insults, just maybe. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I am actually pleasantly surprised that the block still stands, I thought EEng is unblockable (I remember last time I said something about EEng's behavior at ANI, I got a reply from a third party which I read as I should be blocked and not EEng). Anyway, we are not going for an indef, and I personally would have difficulties fully supporting indef at this point. However, a hypothetical situation when a user has a hundred of three day to a week blocks for incivility and apparently considers them "badges of honor" is also not acceptable. What I would like to see as an outcome of this discussion is a logged warning that further violations will be met with escalating blocks. This is what we would expect from every non-unblockable user. And then, if this continues, may be after two or three iterations naturally come to an indef. Or may be it stops, which would be the best outcome of the whole exercise.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure "Unblockables" even exist still (if they ever did). I can think of at least a dozen editors who have consistently been called Unblockable over the last ~15 years. Most of them have been blocked or banned indefinitely, and the rest have all faced serious sanctions of various types. What I do know is that when a thread is opened about a veteran editor, someone immediately saying that they're WP:UNBLOCKABLE so nothing will come of it is the quickest way to get a mob calling for blood over a minor infraction. It is incredibly unhelpful to those trying to resolve a dispute, since it just creates instant hostility. As for calling them "badges of honor", a number of those blocks were reviewed and shown to be blatantly unjustified and even abusive blocks. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. We have to assume that the project has a number of abusive administrators (some of them also holding advanced permissions and being arbitrators), but their abusiveness and lack of judgement only show up when they interact with EEng. Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I assume that you mean that sarcastically. Personally, I don't think it's constructive to characterize this sort of thing as abusive, but rather, to say that, from time to time, bad blocks occur (and are usually corrected) but not just of EEng, and that sometimes a block just isn't helpful. As I've said earlier in this tl;dr, the 72-hour block here was an example of such an unhelpful block, because its primary effect was to escalate, instead of deescalate, this situation, in a somewhat performative demonstration of "virtue", and it doubtless led to the incredible length of this tl;dr at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  It seems to me that EEng has taken away something positive from this 'performative demonstration', and if so, it absolutely was helpful. Not enjoyable, indeed even crappy, but helpful. In some cases, escalation actually is the way to go, as it was here. Sometimes people need very, very large and stinking ANI threads about them to realize that they're doing something wrong. If so, why not, isn't this better than permanently losing an editor because they never got to realize that? No one is truly unblockable indeed, and that's precisely why we needed this and the virtuous admin who had the guts to set it in motion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's a very creative way to justify something crappy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: Your sarcasm aside, a quick spot check turns up this indef block per WP:NOTHERE (actually 3 entries in the block log because talkpage and email were removed with no explanation), where the blocking admin eventually conceded to being high on cold medicine at the time and apologized, receiving a logged warning. There's also this one, which was blatantly an WP:INVOLVED block by someone who completely failed to understand the blocking policy, and wasn't even uncivil. This was also unanimously considered a bad block, WP:INVOLVED and withdrawn by the blocking admin. I've only checked a few, but sometimes blocks do just actually end up being bad ones. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  On the other hand, I have seen a performance of EEng, for which pretty much any other user would have been blocked, and they have not ever received a warning. Even in this thread, even though we have a majority of users support the block but there is a significant minority who do not. This always happens when a user consistently probes the bright lines. Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wordsmith was quite right in observing that when a thread is opened about a veteran editor, someone immediately saying that they're WP:UNBLOCKABLE so nothing will come of it is the quickest way to get a mob calling for blood over a minor infraction. That's exactly what happened here. Just get a few relatively inexperienced editors and tell them about a veteran editor who gets a little too brusque from time to time, and *presto* you'll have a mob in no time flat. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  So true. WP:CESSPIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Easy to paint everyone who doesn't have tens of thousands of edits as "inexperienced" rather than argue on policy, I thought this kind of status didn't matter? Also if it's "a mob" against EEng, should we also call "a mob" people coming to defend EEng from any potential consequences? I don't think either wording is really correct. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  You make some valid points there. I should not have agreed with the use of the word "mob". At the same time, some of us have not been defending EEng from any potential consequences. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this, I was taking the extremes on both side for the comparison, but you make a good point. Not everyone who is against indef wants to see get him away with nothing either. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  People who lack experience tend to undervalue experience. Which is probably why they see no harm in hastily !voting to run a veteran editor off the site without thinking about it too deeply. Also, I've seen very few individuals in this thread arguing for zero sanctions, so I have no idea why you think taking an inapplicable opposite extreme is in any way helpful. Lastly, I've seen plenty of mobs on here before, and this was definitely one of them. I've no interest in listening to you tell me that my own battle scars are somehow misleading or inaccurate, so don't even try. So, to sum up, I respectfully disagree with Tryptofish. I think you, Chaotic Enby, did not make any valid points. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'd like to see if we can come to a reasonable middle here. I really think the bottom line is that everyone here is a real person, and real people are complicated. EEng has flaws, and he admits that, but he also is someone who really is a valuable member of the editing community. Long-time editors don't have a monopoly on being right, but with experience comes more of a feeling for what does or does not work at this very peculiar online community. New editors deserve respect, but they should also be willing to listen and learn. It does nobody any good to reduce other editors to caricatures. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  As an experienced editor, you should know that flauting "experience" or "battle scars" as you call it as a way to win arguments is pretty much considered bad form. Also, I've never said that your edit count was misleading or inaccurate, only that it isn't an automatic win in arguments. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't recall bringing up my edit count. Methinks you have created a caricature of me in your mind, and that's what you are arguing against. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've already linked to it in this very long ANI thread, but there's a wonderful essay (because I wrote it!) at WP:DEFARGE, that I think is worth reading for anyone interested in these kinds of problems with ANI discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  "People who lack experience tend to undervalue experience.":

  Our policies and guidelines make no consideration for experience beyond 500 edits. I've been here since 2005 but that doesn't give me special status as a "veteran editor". It's not for me to look down on an inexperienced editor.

  Experienced editors, if anything, should be more diplomatic and collegial.

  Wikipedia is not Twitter, Reddit or Fight Club.

  I have less respect for editors that don't regulate their emotions sufficiently to be civil. My reaction is, "what's wrong with this person?"

  Some rude editors may only act this way on Wikipedia or social media; those that also do this in real life are living needlessly difficult personal and professional lives.

  Most importantly, we're experiencing difficulty recruiting and retaining new editors so rudeness has implications for our mission. Rudeness is bad for business. ("WP:BADBUSINESS") --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  All of that has essentially nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: yes, that essay (WP:DEFARGE) seems to represent just about the opposite of view of the one indicated by Cullen328 above when he said that analogies with lynch mobs are not helpful. The problem with it as I see it is precisely that it is a caricature. Just because a large group of editor show up on ANI voicing a similar opinion X does not necessarily mean that they are performatively seeking approval as members of a group supporting X to make them feel good about themselves. Maybe (or maybe not, yet maybe) they are voicing the same opinion because it is accurate and valid. It's too easy to call a group of editors a 'mob' just because you happen to disagree with them.

  To be sure, the mob-like behavior does exist, and individual editors can and do often pile on without the necessary consideration. But editors who do that should be individually called out on it. To dismiss a well-considered view just because it happens to be the same view argued in a large number of comments above would be deeply dishonest. That still holds true if some of those previous comments were pile-ons.

  Did you consider that by accusing other editors en masse of the behavior described in the essay, with its talk of performative protestations of outrage, of making yourself feel good about being on the right "side", of assuaging their own dissatisfaction with their lives by reveling in the mockery of others, etc., you are in fact engaging in personal attacks?

  I believe there's a lot of value in having an essay about the pile-on phenomenon, but this one is assuming way too much about groups of editors to be of any value in confronting an individual editor with pile-on behavior. Basically, pile-ons can perfectly happen without a 'mob' being present, and only very rarely does a whole thread only consist of pile-ons without any substance whatsoever. To assume that every huge thread in the 'cesspit' must be a 'mob' having its way is to fundamentally misunderstand the actual causes of such threads, and to unnecessarily berate its participants. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are defending everything that I find disturbing about these aspects of Wiki-culture, but if you want to write a different essay, go right ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Cewbot is kinda annoying though huh? Sure glad we decided to edit five million talkpages to wrap a bunch of pointless content assessment stuff inside an extra template.
  I'm not really struggling with ignoring it, but I only watchlist like six hundred pages. If people with bigger watchlists want it to slow down, it should. It's not like the current WikiProject talkpage banners are breaking anything, nor will they be in four years from now if Cewbot has to run at a rate that's more comfortable for people with long watchlists. Folly Mox (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Since people seem to be wondering: No, I don't want to be indeffed. I just thought it would be better for everyone than all that fighting. I very much appreciate all those who took the trouble to look under the surface and see what's really going on. EEng 05:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. Does anyone know where the code is for the version of One-Click Archiver that lets you check boxes on multiple sections of a talk page and then archive all those sections in a single go?
  • @EEng: WP:ARCHIVE led me to WP:OCA which mentions User:Enterprisey/archiver with "Click to select multiple sections for archiving." Happy clicking! Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure

Any chance of this report being closed soon? If it gets any longer, a committee of editors will be required to make a decision. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The thread is longer than Hamlet and nearly as dramatic (though not anywhere near as scintillating). Should only one editor close it now, especially given the last comments were only a few hours ago? Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 16:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There really isn't much left to discuss. The 72 hour block is overwhelmingly endorsed, there's clearly no consensus for an indef. It would be purely punitive at this point anyway, since the block has already expired and there's no disruption. Somebody should put this topic out of its misery before it becomes longer than EEng's talkpage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I got ya! El_C 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Since I was unable to participate in the discussion except by standing on tippy-toe and shouting through the bars of my holding cell, I would like to exercise a modest right of reply by addressing a few of the assertions made at one point or another.

• Ravenswing, you said that not only does EEng not give a damn what we think in re: civility, but he's said as much outright [145]. Where did I say that? EEng 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. I've signed these requests individually so that the response to each one can be posted immediately below it.
• Thebiguglyalien, you posted a list of ANI threads about me, claiming that In most cases, it's agreed that there's a problem but that "sanctions are unnecessary" [146]. Since you will have reviewed all those threads before making that claim, it won't be hard for you to list here the "most" of them in which it was "agreed that there was a problem". ("Most" probably means, say, 67%, but I'll settle for 50%.) EEng 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• SkyWarrior, you informed everyone that This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th [147]. Could you please specify (by date) those 11 civility blocks? In the interests of transparency, don't forget to distinguish the block marked "joke block", those which were overturned by the community or withdrawn by the blocking admin with an apology, or for which the blocking admin was warned that further similar blocks would lead to a desysopping -- that kind of thing. Thanks! EEng 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. You don't know how much I've missed all of you!

  As a counter-point, one block of EEng was described as "This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could we just let this go already? You were blocked for incivility, and calling out people in this discussion does not sound like the block has changed your attitude at all. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  (nods in agreement) Ravenswing 15:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  You, Ravenswing, would obviously "nod in agreement", since I've caught you out in a falsehood and you'd rather that just slipped under the radar. Let me quote from WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?:

  some types of comments are never acceptable ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links

  I'll give you 24 hours to back up your outrageous claim (detailed in the first bullet above), after which I will call you out as a blatant liar -- which would not be a personal attack, but rather an accusation about personal behavior accompanied by serious evidence i.e. this very discussion.

  See, there are all kinds of incivility. One is the incivility of using strong, even intemperate language to get the attention of someone who's just not paying attention the effect what they're doing is having on other editors. Another is the incivility of misrepresenting facts, events, and others' positions. As nableezy pointed out in the midst of this clusterfuck, One of those is more corrosive to an encyclopedia than the other, and should be taken as or more seriously than the other. I'll leave it to you to decide which one is which. You're not getting away with this one. Put up or shut up. EEng 16:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Like it or not, sometimes being right isnt enough. Sometimes perception >> reality. Youre smart enough to know when, just annoyed enough not to care. But sometimes, shutting up and letting the archive stay archived is the move to make. nableezy - 16:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh don't worry, I'll do that -- just as soon as the 24 hours is up, at which point everyone will know whether Ravenswing is the upstanding seeker of truth and civility he/she portrays himself/herself as, or just a liar. EEng 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, and I lost my chance to respond politely to Apaugasma too. ——Serial 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated content removal in the article Peranakans

Calling for prompt intervention on the repeated blanking of content (and the repeated addition of a rather comical hatnote "descendants of a country child and a foreigner") by User:Visnu92 in Peranakans, which had been subject to an edit war involving said user and placed on temporary protection. Discussions are ongoing in Talk:Peranakans#Should we transfer the 'lost' information into another article? and the related page move issue, but said user has continued with disruptive behaviour of blanking content after the expiry of page protection. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit annoying to have the page re-blanked despite the ongoing RM. (Courtesy ping to Ymblanter, protecting admin.) CMD (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

We probably want to hear from @Visnu92: here. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The article is misleading. As peranakan itself means descendent of local and foreigners. The foreigner can be Arab, Indians, and Portugese . It not Chinese alone. It's look like @HundenvonPenangare biased on this article. This article is under discussion and majority of the people agree that this article should not be on Chinese descendent alone. Visnu92 (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This case is about your repeated massive blanking of content, much of which had been around for years and with sources, and your own edit-warring behaviour that resulted in Peranakans being protected, which you find it fit to resume after protection expired. Where is your claim of bias? Removing sourced content just because you think it's misleading? And should I even begin with your (potentially disparaging) joke of a hatnote "descendants of a country child and a foreigner"?

Said user didn't appear to have a basic understanding of what is a "country child". Hilarious. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Let it be put on record that in making the claim that I was "biased", Visnu92 deliberately ignored this comment I had made proposing NPOV & consensus moving forward from editors of Singapore, Malaysia & Indonesia.

In fact, Visnu92's edit-warring tendencies go back way before this issue, going by his edit history. Treating WP as a battlefield? Said user is simply WP:NOTHERE. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Having participated a little in the surrounding discussions I believe this is too harsh. I think Vishnu92 wants to improve Wikipedia, but struggles to collaborate with others. There has been a bit of a "my way or the highway" approach to this all, and it was very difficult to get Vishnu92 to start discussing things on the talk page. But now that they have stopped edit-warring and started to contribute to the discussion I think we can move forward. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

While the edit-warring in Peranakans has indeed ceased, Visnu92's past actions indicate persistent edit-warring tendencies & refusal to seek WP:CONS, let alone unexplained edits & zero WP:ES for most parts. Already, said user had been blocked on a separate ocassion for disruptive behaviour, along with a whole list of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing stretching back to at least 2012. Who is to say he won't revert to disruptive behaviour in the future?

My two cents: this merry-go-round of disruptive edit-warring & WP:NOTHERE from Visnu92 will persist, unless a more lasting action is taken against such behaviour. My case stands & I leave it to the wisdom of the admins to decide on the next course of action about said user. hundenvonPG (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, more participation in Talk:Peranakans#Requested move 6 January 2024 would be helpful. Nothing (despite the AN/I report) particularly contentious to wade through! CMD (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, second this, any additional input would be much appreciated. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Altynordu

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

Another classical case of a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE user editing in Azerbaijan/Armenia/Iran related articles.

Since 20 February 2023‎ (yes, almost a year), they have been edit warring at Arkhalig through IPs and this account, trying to add the unsourced "Azerbaijani" into the caption of a random dancer [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]

Because of their edits there, I just told them that they were not allowed to edit in articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the editing area is under a community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, and their number of edits was below the threshold for editing in the area. This led to an angry rant and attack; "...It’s clear you have certain nationalistic, personal biases and iranist views so don’t come here talking about edit warring which you also have been a part in. The 2 editors who have changed it from Azerbaijani dancer to 19th century dancer is you an Iranian and KhndzorUtogh an Armenian what a coincidence don’t you think? When trying to spread facts instead of some delusion which you two are doing I get shut down. But I can also rapport you for the same reason." --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Casually decided to left out the part where I said: “I’m not talking about Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict as stated in the page about community imposed restrictions. “Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan,” Where does me clarifying the ethnicity of the dancer fit into any three of these categories.” Altynordu (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I left "..." to indicate there was info before that, it was obviously left out to only highlight the attack. Arkhalig is a traditional dress worn by both Armenians and Azeris, fits with "ethnic relations" pretty well, but I'm not sure what this has to do with your conduct. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn’t. Ethnic relations is the study of social, political and economic relations between ethnicities. Not cultural as in the sharing of a clothing piece. You seem to be misinformed. Altynordu (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure a clothing shared by two ethnic groups fits well under "ethnic relations". And you need to stop being condescending towards other people, telling them that they are "misinformed", "do me a favour and read up on history" [159] and so on. It can't be right that you can't make a single comment without taking at least some sort of dig at someone. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Everyone can be misinformed. No one in the world knows exactly everything. Why do you think I’m attacking you when I’m not. And no you can go to the wiki page about ethnic relations and see for yourself as I said in my previous reply it’s the study of social, political and economic relations between ethnicities. Not cultural ones. Altynordu (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

True, but keep it to yourself, no one is interested in hearing what you think about others. And "ethnic relations" does not mean study of social, political and economic relations between ethnicities..(the article you're referring to Sociology of race and ethnic relations...another thing). Also, WP:GS/AA says broadly construed. The fact Altynordu tries to justify their actions further show that they are WP:NOTHERE. I fail to see how they're a networth to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So I can’t call out someone if they’re spreading misinformation? I don’t think anything about you I just said you were misinformed. Why are you trying to make it to something bigger than it is. And ethnic relations means exactly what I said in my previous reply you can even google it. And the article I referred to is sociology of race and Ethnic relations. Instead of admitting that you are wrong you keep attacking me, but I don’t see the point in arguing with you if you want to take every little word I say as an insult then you do you. I’m not trying to be insulting or disrespectful. I’m just trying to make the page more informative and clear Altynordu (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Regardless of the WP:GS/AA issue and the potential IP socking, Altynordu's edits on Arkhalig are clearly disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support indef block per the evidence presented. Assuming bad faith, personal attacks, edit warring, original research. JM (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support indef block as WP:NOTHERE. Editor tried to misrepresent what their own source says about Persian language too. [160].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef based on personal attacks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Where did I misrepresent anything? I didn’t even edit the article I only suggested a change on the talk. It’s clear Wikipedia has a problem with Persians who follow a pan Iranist and even straight up blind nationalistic rethoric trying to shut down anything that doesn’t fit their narrative. Altynordu (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this above comment of yours, which enlights very well the kind of editor you are, ignoring what reliable sources say when they don't fit with your POV and label it as pan iranism ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources? Obviously you pick and choose on what reliable sources say. I quoted a reliable source to you according to the origins of Azerbaijanis and you straight up ignored them and kept insisting on that they are Iranians. Isn’t that following a pan iranist rhetoric. And we know from samples that Iranian Azerbaijanis cluster closer with Georgians than they do to other Iranians. But that doesn’t make them Georgian. Let me give you an example should we stop calling Iranians, Iranian. Since modern day Persians share very low genetic affinity with the indo aryans who conquered Iran and spread their language. Persians on average have about 0-10% actual indo-European steppe derived dna. Now tell me in which world doesn’t your comments promote pan Iranian ideas? And very dubious ones at that considering Azerbaijanis have more Turkic dna than Persians actually have Iranian. Altynordu (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue the same irrelevant discussion, you're in such a hurry to prove that Persians are not iranians that you keep reading just what fits with your POV, the study you're referring to (about Iranians and Georgians) is just based on mtDNA (which comes to an individual from his/her mother only). Besides, Frye and de Panhol are prominent expert sources about he Middle East, they cannot be challenged by non expert sources (or old sources) like Chursin or Kaser.

This disruptive behaviour, along with personal attacks towards me and other editors clearly makes you a WP:NOTHERE editor. I'll let admins decide as to how to handle this case, it's not my call.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Where am I in an hurry to do anything. I just used your logic against you. I guess we should call Persians Iranian people with Elamite origin by your standards I’m showing how flawed your logic is. And being an expert in history doesn’t make you an expert in genetics I suggest you go read up on the dna of these people before making such ridiculous statements as you were in the comments I responded to. And I have not personally attacked any editor except you. Since you used a pan Iranist rhetoric when talking about a Turkic people. Altynordu (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef; WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user per the evidence up above and them trying to justify it. More personal attacks here [161], and then they have the audacity to claim that they're the one being attacked afterwards [162]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  You’re trying to much it’s kind of embarrassing, listing the same two comments again and again. Altynordu (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Frenchl

Frenchl (talk · contribs)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#User:Frenchl
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:Smasongarrison

This is a long-term disruptive editor - their talk page is littered with warnings, template or otherwise, for disruptive editing, and their conduct has been raised twice before at ANI.

They have an apparent current obsession with editing French footballers, in the context of nationality, making edits like this and this, often 'supported' by questionable sources, adding inappropriate nationality categories to people with acquired citizenship or those with citizenship through descent.

So, in the Vandam example, he is a French footballer who also has (apparently) Ghanaian citizenship, as his parents are from the country. It is right to call him a 'French footballer' - it is incorrect to describe him as a 'Ghanaian footballer', even though he is a footballer with Ghanaian citizenship.

Out of a soccer context, it would be like calling Steven Seagal a 'Russian actor' or 'Serbian martial artist' because he also has those citizenships. I hope that makes sense!

The issue has been raised multiple times, by multiple editors - see User talk:Frenchl#Ethnicity in categories and User talk:Frenchl#Sourcing categories and User talk:Frenchl#Djima Oyawolé, all to no avail.

I therefore propose a topic ban for Frenchl, construed widely, related to the addition, removal, or amendment of wording or categories related to nationality or citizenship. GiantSnowman 20:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious ? Vandam is Ghanaian since 1988, French since 2000, how can you say he is not Ghanaian ? Frenchl (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

While he has both nationalities, he was born and lives in France and plays for French teams. In any case, this is a content dispute and appears to have been discussed several times already, and it is best to focus on the behavioral issue than on the content issue itself, even though both are still obviously linked. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

He was born Ghanaian, became French 12 years later. Invisibilising his Ghanaian nationality is discriminatory and that's not how WP:FOOTY works at all. Frenchl (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I expect an apology from Giantsnowman. His behaviour as an administrator has been problematic for a very long time. Frenchl (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You should not expect one, because he is absolutely correct, as any persual of your talk page will indicate - you have been here 6 months, and there are a dozen or more issues there on issues with your nationality editing - this has been problematic for a significant length of time, and you need to stop doing it. In the July 2023 ANI report linked above you only escaped a sanction because you stopped being disruptive, and now you are doing it again. My constructive advice to you would be to stop edits that impinge on the nationalities of players (and anyone else, especially BLPs), and get on with something more useful. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And yet Frenchl persists in making these edits. GiantSnowman 21:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a ban. My repeated attempts to undo the damage they did after a mass removal of nationality categories and attempts at a discussion about nationality categories resulted in them bringing me to ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:Smasongarrison) over it?! Mason (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also is it possible for someone to close that discussion? Mason (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's more than closed, it's archived. JM (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That's helpful/reassuring Mason (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Frenchl has been here for 6 months and has more than seven thousand edits already? That is impressive! I think we need to get reassurances from @Frenchl: that they will try their best in reading and applying the consensus policy in their edits and discussions. Maybe some sort of probation for 6 months before imposing a topic ban or block? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Category changes are pretty quick to implement. Personally, I don't think that reassurance about consensus will solve the incivility issue. Mason (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We have a very similar rule of thumb in dealing with dual-citizenship in ice hockey bios: that what a player chooses, which national teams he plays for, where he lives and (potentially) where he votes are the determining factors. We could just as well say to you that "invisibling" (WHT?) this player's French nationality is discriminatory. Ravenswing 00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So why is Sebastian Ylönen categorized as a Finnish ice hockey player ? Frenchl (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The article describes him as French, but he is categorized as both a French and Finnish player. Which should probably be the case in all cases of multiple citizenship like this, as it would be better than the status quo. But if it's done against consensus, then I suppose it would be considered problematic (hence this ANI?) JM (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a proof from Ghanaian government that Jerry Van Dam, whose nickname, by the way, is Ghanaboy, and who holidays in Ghana every summer, had a postal address in Nsawam, Ghana, in 2012: [163] (p.1362)

What's more, when he started playing football, he was only a Ghanaian footballer, having only acquired French nationality at the age of 12. Frenchl (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you that he's Ghanian, you don't have to prove anything to me. But you yourself say he has (acquired) French nationality. Maybe your issue is that he's not ethnically French, but I would assume that the categories refer to legal nationality i.e., citizenship, not ethnicity. Given he is legally of both Ghanian and French citizenship, he would be in both categories if we are to follow Ylönen as a standard. But I that's a content issue, not an ANI issue. JM (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am referring solely to legal nationality as defined by the United Nations, I'm not interested in ethnicity here. Although on social networks, in his bio, the player first uses the Ghanaian flag and only then the French flag, I don't have a problem with the fact that he's only described as French in the text. It's the absence of his Ghanaian nationality in the categories that bothers me. There may be some subjectivity in the text, but the categories have to be objective, I think. Frenchl (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We are getting distracted here - this is not a content issue, it's a behaviour issue. The fact that Frenchl continues to argue here speaks volumes. GiantSnowman 18:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The content isn't important, the issue is how they are going about making changes to the content. They have been entirely unresponsive to the behavior issues being raised. Mason (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Giantsnowman, I'd like to remind you that you opened this discussion because of a content issue. You're the one highlighting the case of Jerry Van Dam, comparing him to Steven Seagal when they're obviously opposites (Seagal became Serbian in 2016, Van Dam is Ghanaian from birth). You're an admonished administrator, the least you could do is set an example and admit that you made an error in judgement.

Mason, you accused me of wikilawering and being pedantic for asking you to respect Wikipedia's rules on categorisation, which you blatantly ignored. The behavior issues are not on my side. Frenchl (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Frenchl for overall disruptive editing, includng civility, WP:IDHT, and WP:NOTHERE. Looking at this ANI thread, the past two threads on ANI, and this user's talk page, it's obvious they are way more of a WP:TIMESINK than they are a benefit. If another admin disagrees, they are more than welcome to unblock without discussing me and then deal with this user going foward. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you - I was coming here to note his condescending talk page post they left me. A good block. GiantSnowman 18:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  FYI they've now blanked their talk page, including the ban notice [164] Mason (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Jauerback I humbly request you review your block, maybe at least turn it into a month-long block with a 6 month probation. I don't know how often do you come by an editor that makes 7,000 non-automated edits in 6 months after starting their account. As a non-administrator, to me it seems a pretty good achievement and I think that the guy has a lot of potential for Wikipedia if they can edit with less undue disruption. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem, though, and I think at least several admins would agree, is that this editor has spent the last seven months editing incredibly aggressively, making mass edits, often against consensus, and has shown very, very little contrition or even willingness to listen when made aware of the disruption their work has caused. It's not that all of their edits are bad. It's that almost all of their comments, retorts, reactions, and complaints are condescending, rude, uncivil, and/or dismissive. If an editor makes 7,000 edits in six months and falls afoul of some rule or practice that lands them here, but all the while shows an understanding of what they've done wrong, you'd be making a solid point. But this editor has done just the opposite. I strongly support the block. Anwegmann (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, quite - we're not talking about 7,000 good edits, but we are talking about 6 months of disruption. GiantSnowman 09:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and reverting

@LLC226699 User tends to make unsourced changes or changes with not reliable sources , reverting already reverted edits and other edits multiple times without discussion. Not replying or discussing anything about the subject , and not explaining the reason behind changes. Not responsive in the talk page while being active. Made edits in List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces page. Can you do something about please ? IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP range

2601:183:4B82:E70:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been repeatedly removing talk page comments from Talk:WTIC-FM with no explanation, and has done so again despite a final warning. They have also been persistently restoring their (often unsourced) changes to Connecticut road articles. As is required, I have notified the most recent IP, 2601:183:4b82:e70:7c8c:2358:4392:1613 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oops, they shifted to ‎2601:183:4b82:e70:d05d:9ef7:a423:9b63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) before I could post. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked 2601:183:4B00:0:0:0:0:0/40 for a week. Next time, please ask for assistance before reverting more than three times. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks after running out of reverts

Βατο (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks here [165] Now I have enough experience to realize your contribution in Wikipedia is just disruptive editing. And I will not waste more time with you here. I'll expand the article and summarize later its content in the lede. And your disruption, as always, will be trivial. It sounds like he is basically announcing his intent to edit-war without further discussion. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not announcing an intent to edit-war without discussion, I stated that I'll expand the article with sources, and then summarise its content in the lede. As for the "disruption", you removed sourced content from the lead section keeping only one of the two academic views on the subject of the article without proper explanation. You have already tried it, unsuccessfully, in several articles before. – Βατο (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I have explained everything regarding the content in the talkpage and anyone can see that. But your comment is very much a personal attack and needs to be brought to the community's attention. Khirurg (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The only explanation you gave is this one [166]: The lede should be neutral and not promote one narrative over another. That he was an "Illyrian chieftain" is just one hypothesis. There are others as well. By making "Illyrian" the seventh word in the article, you are promoting one narrative over another. That is the very definition of POV-pushing. which actually is in contradiction with your edit because you removed only one of the two academic views on the subject of the article, and which includes also aspersions of POV pushing when that's not the case at all. – Βατο (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your edit because I thought it promoted one narrative over another. I stand by that. The issue here is your absolutely uncollaborative and downright contemptuous response. Let me remind you that collaboration is one of the five pillars of wikipedia and is not "optional". Khirurg (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Which is your "collaboration"? The removal of one of the two competing academic views on the subject of the article? As per WP:NPOV: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." – Βατο (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is not negotiable, and the text I removed was the opposite of NPOV Sirras or Sirrhas (Template:Lang-grc; d. 390 BC) was either an Illyrian chieftain by making the word "Illyrian" the seventh word to appear in the lede, even though all sources state that this individual's ancestry is disputed. But the issue is not the content, but your contemptuous, uncollaborative behavior. There is also the earlier attempt by you to intimidate another editor by placing a bogus 3RR-warring tag on their talkpage [167], even though the user had only one revert (same as you). The issue here is your behavior, about which you haven't shown the slightest hint of self-reflection. Khirurg (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The description: [Sirras] was either an Illyrian chieftain or a prince-regent of Lynkestis is what bibliography support. You removed the Illyrian affiliation and kept the Lynkestian one, breaking the WP:Neutral point of view of the lead sentence. The breaking of one of the pillars of Wikipedia, which is a 'non-negotiable' policy, can be labelled as "distruption". – Βατο (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Do you really believe an admin would "deal with this"? There is nothing an admin can do apart from telling you to open an RfC to sort out your content disputes through community input. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am continuing to discuss in the talkpage, but when one user announces they are done discussing, we have a problem, and admin intervention is necessary. Khirurg (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I completely understand Bato’s frustration here. Khirurg and I are regularly engaged in content disputes across a number of articles revolving around Albanians and Greeks, and he has even followed me around on pages revolving around Albanian articles that have nothing to do with Greece (by that, I mean articles which he has never edited on or shown interest in). There is a lot of back and forth, incivility, bad blood etc, and I think it is double-standards for Khirurg to report another editor for personal attacks. To help paint himself as a victim even though he treats fellow editors with much incivility and disrespect, he also created a collection of what he calls taunts.
• I get Bato’s frustration at Khirurg’s history of disruptive behaviour on articles. There is evidence of him reverting me on articles just for the sake of it, such as here [168], where it was apparent that he didn’t read the source and just RV’ed for the sake of it. After that, I opened up a TP discussion, where he admitted that the source was falsified in the past [169] but he clearly hadn’t checked up until that discussion despite the reverts. Another noteworthy example of Khirurg reverting me without looking at the sources (or intentionally falsifying content, that's the only alternative) can be found here [170], and I brought it to his attention both in the edit summary and my subsequent comments on the TP [171][172]. This type of disruptive behaviour can be really obstructive at times and is definitely not done in WP:GOODFAITH, as source falsification and reverting for the sake of reverting are not actions associated with good faith editing. Khirurg would seem to have a natural disposition towards opposing particular editors that they continuously come into conflict with, or opposing content revolving around Albanians - I am not sure why this is, but I completely understand Bato’s frustration. I hope admins are made aware of the type of disruptive behaviour that Khirurg regularly exhibits that would’ve provoked Bato into writing what they did. It’s not even that much of a personal attack, it’s an honest observation of his behaviour on certain articles. Botushali (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:STALK, WP:ASPERSIONS. Nothing new here, just the usual stalking and smearing. 3 kb of text at that. Also pretty rich coming from someone with a 3 month block [173]. Khirurg (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting reaction from someone who is currently reporting another user for personal attacks… Botushali (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Finally Khirurg got the point [174] and restored one of the two academic views. But how much time was wasted for it? How much discomfort he provoced to other editors? As explained by Botushali above from his own experience, this behavior by Khirurg is not something new. I've experienced it for a long time now. Many of his reverts definitely are not necessary at all. As are the walls of text produced in article's talk pages just for a revert made by him, who often contributes to the article with little or nothing other than the revert itself. Also in this case, at the end of the day, my remark and your disruption, as always, will be trivial went as expected. – Βατο (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the disruption by you is far from trivial [175]. This is completely undue in the section heading and there isn't a single wikipedia article where an individual's (disputed) ethnicity is included in the section heading. It is deplorable that every attempt at compromise is derided and mocked, and leads to even more egregious POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you talking about individual's (disputed) ethnicity? No ethnicity is included in that section heading. That section is all about the widely supported theory of the identification of Sirras with the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian war. You cannot omit the 'Illyrian chieftain' label in the heading of that section, because the entire section is based on that. You see POV where there is no POV at all. But a possible simple solution to your concern is to reword it "as a Chieftain of the Illyrian army", not to completely remove it, because it is an information essential for the description of that section. – Βατο (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not "essential" at all, unless the goal is to push POV. It's possible, but far from certain, that he is the Illyrian chieftain that participated in the Peloponnesian war. The section heading should be neutral, and that's non-negotiable. Whether he is the Illyrian chieftain is to be discussed in the body text, not in the section heading. Unless of course, the goal is to just make the word "Illyrian" as prominent as possible at the expense of neutrality. Khirurg (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The scholars' theory illustrated in that section is "Sirras was the Illyrian chieftain who participated in the Peloponnesian War". You have to find a neutral wording to provide the full description of that theory. If you omit some parts, it is not the scholars' theory. – Βατο (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The hypothesis of some scholars is that Sirras was possibly the Illyrian chieftain that participated in the Peloponnesian war. Explaining that is what the text of the section is for, not the section heading. I am confident no neutral wikipedia users will back the heading you are proposing. Khirurg (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the hypothesis. If he was not the Illyrian chieftain, there is no historical basis for his participation in that war. I think it's clear. – Βατο (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  So "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War" is a perfectly neutral section heading. Khirurg (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  The theory is not about "Possible participation in the Peloponnesian War", but about "Sirras as the presumable chieftain of Illyrians in the Peloponnesian War". You fail to see my point. I asked for other editors' suggestions in the relevant talk page. – Βατο (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is not an encyclopedic section heading. Repeating what is in the first sentence in the section heading is not what section headings are for. Khirurg (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Initially your issue was with ethnicity in section heading, then when I explained that it is not about ethnicity you changed your concern to 'hypothetical information', and now you change it to 'unencyclopaedic heading'? Not mentioning the full description of the hypothesis is misleading because there is no historical basis that the subject of the article participated in that war as a chieftain of an army other than Illyrian, the hypothesis is strictly related to that information. Anyway, I don't expect you to change your mind, I am waiting for other editors' thought on the relevant talk page. – Βατο (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Intentional harrassment by Hemiauchenia

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am bringing this here at the offending editor's specific suggestion. Said editor has been posting a series of personal attacks with the tone of trying to harass a fellow editor off of the site.

• you're the kind of low quality editor that Wikipedia needs to weed out. I suggest you stop whining and stop wasting the time of contributors who are far more valuable to the encyclopedia than yourself.
• It's not discrimination, it's called taking out the trash.
• You have nothing valuable to contribute to this website, and I suggest you find something better to do with your life.

Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This was an editor that was arguing that a medical textbook was not a reliable source. Their few other edits include additions that completely fail WP:MEDRS e.g. their additions to Banisteriopsis caapi back in 2018 What is one to say to an editor that can't respect basic WP:RS policy? Such editors are not useful encyclopedic contributors. You've redacted the comments and I don't plan to restore them, and I consider that the end of the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If one cannot respond without violating WP:NPA and engaging in harassment, there is the option of not saying anything at all. That you feel that such conduct is not actionable and that you deem it appropriate to continue such attacks on this noticeboard only makes it more vital to make it clear otherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In one of your comments you asked What's the point of respectfully discussing with people like you who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"? Does this same logic apply to people who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I accept that I could have been less hostile (and it probably would have been better to do so) and I do not object to NG's redactions, but my view that this user was a disruptive editor who didn't respect basic Wikipedia policies remains. I've struckthrough all comments I made in the discussion if this helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote out this long rant but deleted it. TLDR: Hemi was right, you took the wrong editor to ANI. Levivich (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup. It is a simple, demonstrable fact that Wikipedia routinely 'weeds out' contributors who demonstrate the abject failure and/or refusal to understand how Wikipedia works that was being exemplified in the WP:BLPN discussion. And given that it is necessary to do, so, one cannot reasonably describe a suggestion that it be done in such an obvious case as 'harassment'. Being told this is no doubt unpleasant to those on the receiving end, but we aren't here to hand out free hugs and candy floss... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely possible to tell an editor they're not editing constructively without referring to it as taking out the trash and other language like this. Civility is still a policy, and it doesn't mean hand[ing] out free hugs and candy floss. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 08:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the civility policy could be rebranded as reinforcement learning for civil POV pushing. I think that might be where it has had its greatest success. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, unmanageable behavioral problems". Is the OP suggesting something here rises to that level, or is this an isolated incident? Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Hemiauchenia has 48,409 edits and has improved 1000s of articles. NatGertler has 40,667 edits and has improved 1000s of articles. Maybe Hemiauchenia didn't use the best language but their message was accurate. I really do not get why experienced users feel the need to report each other or infight when the real issue are accounts with no productive edits on this website causing trouble. This account here is the real issue [176] they have been disrupting the John McDougall article when their edits were reverted they filed a false complaint on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎claiming a book doesn't include the word fad diet even though that very term is in the title. After they lost that discussion, Now they are back on the talk-page of the article writing nonsense. It's obvious this account won't give up on their crusade. In a few days or a week's time we may be back here at this noticeboard talking about them. As above the wrong editor was taken to ANI here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "experienced user" greatly decreased his Wikipedia involvement because not just of the culture of harassment, but because of the culture here at ANI which has judged harassment to be just fine if it comes from an experienced user (I have slipped back into the habit lately, but will likely be pulling that back._ If the WP:NPA is only meant to be no-personal-attacks-except-against-those-we-think-aren't-very-good-editors, then it should be rebranded as such, but until such is done, WP:BRIE still applies. Does the other editor need to get attention as well? Possibly, and you are free to do something about it, but there is nothing that says that both editors can't be in the wrong. Hemiauchenia originally blew off concern about his actions and said that I should bring him here, which is when I did so; that he has since pedaled back, admitted that some of his speech was improper (even if at times half-heartedly) is to be recognized and if he makes some statement that he would watch it in the future, would probably now be sufficient... but none of that should be taken as backing the idea that personal attacks intended to drive someone off of the site are not a "real issue". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can second this. Hemiauchenia acknowledged that it could have been handled differently, and I'm satisfied by that if it actually is handled differently in the future. But Wikipedia's toxic culture is one of the main reasons I've been less active over the last few months. I can only imagine how many would-be productive editors we've lost just so the old boy's club at ANI can engage in victim blaming and act like incivility is perfectly fine if it's "justified" or a "net positive". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also agree with this, there is absolutely a culture of defending incivility, up to the point of harassment, in the name of being correct/being a "net positive" contributor. And, needless to say, this absolutely goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. You shouldn't get a free pass every 10 thousand edits you make. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "experienced user" greatly decreased his Wikipedia involvement because when people lie about what sources say, instead of doing anything about it, the community will punish other people for calling it out. Levivich (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Psychologist Guy this amounts to bullying when enabling insults and pushing half-truths just because you don't like what I say.

  Yes, I'm at fault for questioning weak sources, even textbooks, but I don't deserve harrassment for asking fundamental questions. Teleoid (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• I propose that this be closed with no action against Hemiauchenia. Anyone is free to remind them of the need for civility in dealing with people who do not meet our requirements, but it seems that there is no need to as the editor has already acknowledged that. Yes, Hemiauchenia could and probably should have worded things a bit differently, but I see nothing remotely blockworthy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This report fails to recognise the aggressive tone that was being used by the person Hemiauchenia was addressing - neither party was blameless here. I do not believe that any action is necessary, but I would advise Hemiauchenia that even if the other party is being aggressive, belligerent, or just sealioning, resorting to snide remarks does nothing to enhance your argument, and often ends up with threads like this one getting started. Don't try to score points - you can avoid handing people a stick to beat you with if you are able to keep your interactions dispassionate. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you thinking about [177]? If so, it should be considered that [178] effectively implies that Teleoid, who presumably takes the subject seriously, may be 'religious' and 'evangelical' about whole-food plant-based diets. I'm not saying that Teleoid's reaction was justified, but there was no need for the original insinuation either. It's in fact a huge and persistent problem within the fringe subject area that editors tend to address other editors with the same contempt they personally have for the subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's one comment out of many personalised and hostile posts that Teleoid has directed towards other editors. Here, they accuse other editors of being motivated by spite. Here the accuse others of gaslighting them. Here they are again attacking other editors' motivations. While I don't think that Heniauchenia's comments were necessary or helpful, it's Teleoid's mixture of belligerence, cluelessness and their willingness to personalise disagreements over content that is at the root of this issue. If we need to apply a sanction to prevent disruption, I think a TBan on Teleoid from that particular subject area would probably put an end to all this disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your last two diffs came out as links to the talk history. I agree though that the disruption is caused by a combination of Teleoid's incompetence and belligerence. I was assuaged by this, but I didn't realize that this and this was posted later. At least they seem to be having trouble dropping the stick. If the behavior doesn't stop soon I agree a TBan would probably help. As for the rest, I tend to agree with Johnuniq's comment below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm - odd. You'd think I'd know how diffs work by now. Oh well, here goes, for the record: accusation of gaslighting; attack on people's motivations. These latter two pre-date any of the diffs by Hemiauchenia in the original report - they weren't a response to them, they were a response to other editors who were trying to discuss the content rationally and in a civil manner. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to apologise for my defensiveness and if offended any of the editors, I reacted to perceived hostility in kind.

  I truly barely understand the rules here while the learning curve is very steep.

  This is despite being a member since 2018, as you can verify I have very few edits, and very little experience. Teleoid (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing that in my view would improve Wikipedia more than a stricter enforcement of civility requirements would be a much, much stricter take on WP:HERE and WP:COMPETENCE: in my opinion, these should be policy and they should say that all editors are required (a) to gain a basic knowledge of what an encyclopedia is and how it is written, and (b) to demonstrate within a reasonable timeframe that they are actually capable of improving the encyclopedia in some way. Those who neither have the required knowledge nor show any sign of wanting to acquire it should immediately be blocked indefinitely, as do those who after a certain amount of time and edits cannot come up with evidence of having actually improved the encyclopedia. In effect, in my view we should do what Hemiauchenia suggested and 'weed out' 'low quality editors' quickly, systematically, and without fuss.
  However, we should never use such language when addressing editors. To speak of specific individual human beings in terms of 'weeding out' and 'taking out the trash' is never acceptable. Personal and condescending comments like 'find something better to do with your life' are also beyond the pale. Not only could Hemiauchenia have worded things differently, they absolutely should have. I think it's deeply problematic to take 'being right' as a sufficient cause to render WP:CIV null and void. For one, people think they're right all the time when they aren't, which would make such a principle extremely destructive also in cases where it's not actually warranted. But even when someone is right, insulting, dehumanizing or bullying those who are wrong is likely to have all kinds of negative consequences. And who's never been wrong? WP:BRIE indeed.
  Perhaps the unspoken idea behind some of the views given above is that for editors who are so wrong that WP would be better off without them, being uncivil towards them is an effective way to actually chase them away and make WP better, and so editors should be given some leeway to do just that. While I understand that rationale, I think it causes an unacceptable and largely unfathomed amount of collateral damage. Much more effective would be to have stricter policy, and proactive but civil enforcement of that policy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Adding that editors can and absolutely do learn and improve, and being uncivil to editors for not being right on the first try might chase away people who would've made great editors a few weeks or months later. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Given that you chastised me a few months ago for rewriting a Wikipedia article you had a major part in writing in to fix serious, glaring issues with neutrality (See Talk:Francevillian_biota), and never acknowledged the clear problems, I think it's a bit pot calling the kettle black to make statements about editor competence like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this discussion is about Hemiauchenia, but the issue stems from the behaviour of a user with hardly any edits on this website Teleoid. This user has been canvassing off-site (Redacted). What is the correct way with dealing with this? From experience from what I have seen in the past, when new users create threads on internet forums asking for help this doesn't usually work. I have not seen any new users edit the article or talk-page so this is probably a non-issue in regard to disruption but the behaviour is clearly problematic here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The pious language above about being nice to everyone is fine but the real reason to be nice to POV pushers is that it makes less of an enemy of them. That makes it easier for them to slip away when faced with reality. Many examples show that goaded people will fight forever while people who are merely stonewalled by policy often give up. That's a trout for Hemiauchenia. Posting neutral messages on noticeboards asking for opinions should get enough editors involved so that each can revert without approaching 3RR. Use bland edit summaries that repeat mentions of NPOV and FRINGE, etc. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:HOUNDING

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting unnecessary, trivial, and deliberately unconstructive edits on pages out of bad-faith on pages by singling out ones I've contributed to and edit-warring them in. On 25 December and 26 December, they restored WP:BOOSTER material I removed then moved onto pages I either recently edited, substantially contributed to, or promoted to GA Status, starting with the judge Elizabeth Branch then John Hart Ely, Dumas Malone, Quintin Johnstone and Joshua Katz, and continued with my more recent pages (all listed on their user log). These pages are wholly unrelated to the pages they've previously edited except the fact that they are the ones I've substantially contributed to.

User:Summerdays1 has made it clear that his edits are meant to be obstructive and in bad-faith. After reaching out on my talk page, he left a message that he later covertly deleted and followed it up:

To begin, are you able to show me places where you either made mistakes on here or where you learned something? You give the impression that you know something or more than most. I doubt you even know as much as I do.Summerdays1 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you won't listen to me so I'll find an admin. You are a "wrecking ball"; if you feel you need to crusade "one man style" to remove information from colleges and "justifying it" with the few same Wikipedia principles... I'll point out that you have been reverted numerous times going back more than a year. I agree some university pages have "fluff". You aren't trying to correct stuff. You're removing too much material and you don't even attempt to remedy or fix articles. Be pro-active and less reactive. You damage this site and it has to end.Summerdays1 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Then they've reached out to editors to WP:CANVASS, and the messages show the same pattern. First to Rrsimone, then to admin Favonian:

Guardian H has edited articles for about a year in political thought, judicial, and college topics. This user has been heavily reverted at times (Boethius, etc.) and still does not seek consensus or adapt in any fashion.
I saw you are bilingual, cool. I will guess you can understand these nuances, perspectives, and topics. As I told GH no one I know is pro-boosterism. At the same time left unchecked, GH will wreak holy havoc on any academic article they see.Summerdays1 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 has not gone out to try and reach any sort of consensus on the pages I contributed to nor even to try to build a consensus on the pages regarding higher education. I've reverted some of these edits; as of today, they have reverted them back. They aren't here to improve articles and no longer here to build an encyclopedia. GuardianH (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I previously warned User:Summerdays1 about edit-warring, but they promptly removed that notice today from their talk page. GuardianH (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a repost from my previous message, which got archived, since problems persist. GuardianH (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Arguably just this message alone deserves a block of some length. Then there's the blatant canvassing. Summerdays1 clearly deserves some form of block. On the other hand, I am sceptical of the WP:HOUNDING claims. The supposed WP:BOOSTER material that Summerdays1 re-added doesn't seem to actually be booster material at all. The claim, The institution has been ranked 200–300 in the world as one of the best universities, doesn't appear to be BOOSTER. Bar the first sentence in the Yale edit, the content appears to be acceptable. The rest of the edits listed as supposed hounding all seem to be good-faith minor edits that generally make sense. Unless I'm missing something obvious, GuardianH's edits seem to be plain bad faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 Summerdays1 said pretty explicitly that I damage this site and it has to end and that I will wreak holy havoc on any academic article. It's hard to see these edits under innocuous summaries as something other than with the aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress (WP:HOUNDING) to provoke a response from me, making them in bad-faith. Why else would they go from singer and songwriters to higher education and legal academics? GuardianH's edits seem to be plain bad faith - I don't see how my edits are bad-faith when I have no agenda against universities in cleaning up boosterism. GuardianH (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH: Summerdays1 said pretty explicitly that I damage this site and it has to end and that I will wreak holy havoc on any academic article. I'm not denying that Summerdays1's conduct has been unacceptable, they clearly need to be punished for their blatant violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:CIV. Why else would they go from singer and songwriters to higher education and legal academics? People are allowed to change what articles they edit. Even if they are choosing to solely edit articles that you have had been substantially involved in, the edits in question appear to minor copyedits that appear to be generally positive changes, such as fixing minor grammatical mistakes and clearer language. As I have previously said, I don't see any evidence of Summerdays1 re-adding booster content or hounding you. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 Sorry, I was being unclear. A lot of the edits are were not constructive and added, rather than removed, errors:

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189])
• Erroneous material ([190] [191])
• Readded boosterism ([192])

These edits made the quality of writing in the article worse and were made without knowledge of citation placements, code format, etc., which is especially frustrating for the articles I worked to write and promote to GA status. Basically, when they said that I damage this site and it has to end and then went and undid/reverted my edits on articles — thats bad-faith editing with the intent to hound. GuardianH (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@GuardianH: I must apologise. There are some actual improvements in the series of edits, however many of them contain obvious spelling mistakes and downgrades to the article. On face value, they seem relatively normal edits, but on a more thorough read, it's rather obvious that they are subversive minor edits that, on a cursory read - like I initially did - appear innocent. Indeed, all of the articles that they have done this to are ones that you have extensively edited. Separate from all of these issues, Summerdays1 appears to be practising a unique type of WP:ICHY, that comes down to, 'ignore the problem and it will eventually go away'. They removed Liz's comment asking them to comment on this page. I believe an indef ban on Summerdays1 is the best option. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I, of course, support your view. GuardianH (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've taken this out of the archives since problems persist. This is the second time I've had to take it out from being archived by the bot; it would be good if an admin could deal with the issue as it's been a while now. GuardianH (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• I just picked through most of a dozen of the problem links provided, and found that some of his editing is a bit of a problem, the booster stuff, some external websites that don't belong, but I think the reason that this is getting archived, twice now, is that you are overstating the problem. This seems to be a personality issue as much as an editing issue. For instance, in the claim "Arguably just this message alone deserves a block of some length. [193]" you give a bad link. I go down to the last part that has his comments and don't see anything block worth at the end of the page. Frankly, he IS making some mistakes (nothing drastic, but they are editing mistakes, not behavior mistakes). You guys aren't doing a great job explaining it to a new user either. I'm not prepared to do anything at this stage, except advise you guys to be just a little more patient and explain why he is wrong. You seem to be right on the merits, but wrong on the delivery with a new user. I'm not ready to block someone because they are mistaken. And Summerdays1, you might also try to pull back just a bit and listen. They are telling you some worthwhile things, although not very eloquently, and on the whole, they are more "correct" than you are here. There is a lot of leeway in editing, but there are some guidelines we try to stick to, to keep articles from sounding like booster pages, for instance. We don't claim a school is a "top school", for instance. We *might* say "$x school was ranked by Time Magazine as the #1 school for music(source)". We use top quality sources, and use THEIR VOICE, not our voice. We don't make the claim.... we just document the fact that the source made the claim. These are all fixable errors. Now lets go edit and let this be archived. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown What we discussed was that the edits weren't mistakes — they were deliberate and unconstructive, based on what Summerdays1 said themself. Apologies for the bad links, I've re-organized them below:

  • 2 violations of WP:CANVASS [194][195]
  • Intent to WP:HOUND [196] [197]
  • Removal of edit warring notice [198]
  • Removal of ANI notice [199]
  • Second removal of ANI notice placed by @Liz [200]
  • Possible personal attack (taunting me on my talk page) [201]
  • Personal attack [202] (Apparently you won't listen to me so I'll find an admin. You are a "wrecking ball"; You damage this site and it has to end)

  I have already listed some of his edits in my previous message — they proceeded to go on pages I've worked on and either reverted my edits or continued to make edits out of bad-faith that downgraded the articles. This is not to say that all of the edits made were totally unconstructive, but most were. A list of those are too extensive to place in the thread but here's a list of those edits.

  Me and @JML1148 discussed that the above constitutes disruptive behavior. It warrants a block, especially also given that they've ignored all the warnings. GuardianH (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: When a user is personally attacking editors [203] and removes invitations to explain themselves [204], I'm not going to be a little more patient and explain why he is wrong. It's clear they have absolutely no intention to work constructively, and should be sanctioned like any other editor in the same position would be. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  That is what I mean. Not every heated exchange is a personal attack. If he called you a "fucktard", then yes, that would obviously cross the line, but I wouldn't normally block someone for that exchange. He's frustrated, and while his tone isn't particularly helpful, you are overstating it. At worst, it is a bit uncivil. This is why no one has bothered to opine here. In your second link, you didn't offer a chance to discuss, you called him to ANI, and every editor has the right to remove notifications on their own talk page, so he did nothing wrong by removing it, so yes, you are crying wolf. Everyone needs to dial it back, like I said earlier. I don't have anything to add, I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over, I'm not a magic 8 ball, you aren't going to get a different answer. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown I can't agree with what you just said. Heated exchanges do not justify canvassing; heated exchanges do not justify hounding; and it certainly doesn't give a pass for disruptive behavior. Heated exchanges can be acceptable, but only when both editors involved can be assumed to be editing in good faith and constructively, which isn't the case here. I think your reasoning gives a pass to Civil POV pushing — that is, an editor who deliberately makes unconstructive edits out of bad-faith is acceptable so long as they give the appearance of civility, or just enough uncivility keep the face of it.

  But, frankly, this wolf comes as a wolf. The reason I listed the removal of the notices is not because it's prohibited (it isn't), but because it's another case of the editor showing no intention to work constructively like @JML1148 pointed out. See also [205]. This is why I didn't offer a chance to discuss: because they left personal attacks, showed their intent to hound my edits, canvassed two users, and did go to revert and make unconstructive changes to pages I've improved. I don't want to have a discussion with someone with that behavior — who would?

  If you're not going to give a different answer, would you at least be willing to look it over if the hounding/canvassing/edit-warring/etc. continues? Because now the onus is on me to be civil with an editor who isn't — to be constructive to an editor who isn't — on the pages I've worked to improve, to an editor who isn't trying to improve them. GuardianH (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) GuardianH (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Draft:The Car Accident Lawyers

This weird concoction Draft:The Car Accident Lawyers, presumably just ADMASQ, keeps being created by IP users, all sharing the same ISP and creating the same content, so clearly one individual or a small group. I've requested the title to be salted, which should (hopefully) put an end to it, but they're now also spamming AFCHD. Their earlier IPv4 range (47.11.206.1 etc.) has been blocked for a week by HJ Mitchell. They've now moved to IPv6, with addresses (so far)

• 2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6
• 2409:40E1:26:2FA9:D815:28FF:FEB0:DC68
• 2409:40E1:CD:8728:8080:CFFF:FED9:352F

Could these be blocked as well, please?

(I have notified one, but only one, of the IPs of this discussion, pointless as that probably was.)

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They are now also blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruption of articles

This user Any mail have been disrupting and removing sourced contents in articles, he has been warned by many editors but still continue the same thing.examples: [206][207][208][209][210][211] [212] removed restored content [213] deleted the article[214] [215][216][217] and many more.I hope care will be taken quickly. Yotrages (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) This was previously posted on the 7th, but was achieved without comment (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Edit warring). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't notified Any mail (talk · contribs) of this report specifically (only the possibility of being reported here). I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring policy, Westall UFO

LuckyLouie & Rjjiii have repeatedly reverted into the article information which is prohibited by OR. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Bishonen applied a block to my editing at Westall UFO when constructive Talks were continuing between myself and Rjjiii in response to the needs of policy. This has caused the problems of OR with the article to be maintained within the article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussions are here, from 3 January 2024 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

LuckyLouie & Rjjiii are now both propounding "Skeptoid" as a source, but I have already indicated ("Dunning investigation/verification" in Talk) the proofs of this reference having obvious errors within it which would discount it's use. Both editors are obviously biased against the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event, as is shown at Talk:Westall UFO#Sources. Their position currently therefore isn't Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No. You are simply wrong, and Bishonen was perfectly justified in taking that action. Your talk was not constructive. The neutral point of view is that the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event is impossible, even if we don't know what that rational explanation is. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In the first instance and to re-iterate, the problem is OR. You state your opinion I state to you in reply, the problem is OR in the article. That is why I opened the discussion here. What is your response specifically and only, firstly, to the problem that I indicated? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Both editors are obviously biased against the existence of any UFO other than there being some rational explanation for the event is not a violation of NPOV, it is clearly following WP:FRINGE policy. The filer, on the other hand... Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I already indicated no-one is propounding a theory, the suggestion of UFO is within the idea of fringe theory, but there aren't any theoreticians present to state theory. This is observable at Talk:Westall UFO 8 January 2024 "Your question necessitates that it is a fringe theory". That is what I found, it isn't my opinion without giving reasons so stating you disgree without discussing the sources isn't a reason, it is just an opinion that you think I am wrong. I would like to be convinced that other editors are correct and I am wrong, but no-one is providing evidence from the sources, which explictly details how I am wrong, in discussion of the sources. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note: there is an extensive discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard of the issue over which I page-blocked Simpul skitsofreeneea. Bishonen | tålk 18:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC).

And Timeline of schizophrenia is a fringe theory, amd I am a fringe theory, for the article and my username to be discussed there under that heading? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What..? I just noticed that Simpul skitsofreeneea has now further forumshopped the Westall UFO issue to WP:NORN. Simpul skitsofreeneea, you are seriously wasting your own time as well as everybody else's. Please stay at one board! (The FTN discussion is by a comfortable margin the oldest.) Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC).

Trying to continue their arguments here, since they're blocked from the article and its talk page, is simply continuing the disruption. Simpul's talk page indicates that they've had issues in multiple topic areas. I think they have good intentions, but their response on their talk page about passive smoking and their comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of schizophrenia are so idiosyncratic that I question whether they can adapt to Wikipedia's mores. Perhaps there's a language issue?

(I linked to pages rather than diffs because Simpul collates multiple edits into a single paragraph with timestamps interspersed.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I indicated the topic for discussion. You think the topic is me so the discussion is irrelevant. The topic is OR in the article. I provided the evidence of OR which is observable by reviewing my changes to find the same evidence that I found, or not. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If editors don't think my notice here is possible, which is evidence of OR and this is the opportunity to find the proof that the article does or doesn't contain OR to legitimately close this discussion: I filed this notice, not there is a discussion of whether I am someone who could file the notice, I'll have to proceed to file it to the next process in the dispute. All I ask for is observation of if or not OR exists in the article. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My concerns are shown above in the introductory statements. If editors could respond direcly to those statements then I will receive a response to this notice. That is all. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am stating: prohibited by OR, is the problem, as is observable at the OR noticeboard Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not prohibited by WP:NOR, but your position is prohibited by WP:FRINGE. The reason that it is difficult to find any debunking of your position is simply that reliable sources do not write about such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm re-explaining now the problem of OR: under the section Reports: contains information which is isn't found in the references. That is the problem of OR. I showed this is the case on the Talk page. This means that under Reports is stated details about Westall which have no source to verify is anything at all to do with what happened at Westall. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is language. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is clearly competence, or rather the lack of it. To be blunt, regardless of the ultimate cause, I cannot see how anyone who could post the rambling mess that is Simpul skitsofreeneea's response to my AfD nomination [218] can usefully contribute to a collaborative project. As to whether this is at least in part a language issue, it may possibly be, but it makes no functional difference either way. We cannot be expected to have to wade through rambling walls-of-text comments like that, regardless of why they are written, and it appears that this is Simpul skitsofreeneea's standard form of response to any criticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading the comments regarding Simpul skitsofreeneea's block for disruption at Simple English Wikipedia is worthwhile. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I am User: Simpul skitsofreeneea. I opened this discussion because of the problem of OR in the article Westall UFO. If you'd like to turn your attention to the top of the section, you will see the introductory comments on the topic of this discussion. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Within a certain period of time if no-one thinks my statements that there is a policy breach in the Westall UFO article necessitates a response of adherence to policy then I will determine no-one currently participating in the discussion understands the need for policy. You can see I make acusations against Rjjiii in the introductory statememts, but Rjjiii continued to relocate the source for part of the OR problem so that partially exonerates Rjjiii. We could all observe this exonerative situation by the existence of reference 3 in the article of which the route for inlcusion is shown in Talk where-by Rjjiii has indicated the existence of the source. That is indicative of a problem-solution response. Im am currently stating the problem here. The incident is OR as I demonstrated (and re-iterate currently without proof or disproof from reviewing editors) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly tried to use this document as a source:[219] It is a collection of summaries of eyewitness interviews by a 1960s ufologist, compiled by other ufologists. When I asked if they thought it met the guidelines at WP:FRIND, they replied "Succintly, no" followed by 700 barely coherent words arguing for its inclusion.[220] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is OR I indicated the nature, details, places to look to verify the details, to deal with the problem which is filed under this Notice. I request that you notice (you see, you observe, you view, you perceive) what I am stating is the problem.

Since you did notice previously I provide this response: That is not true. If you would like to observe "succintly no because there isn't category: physics in the article, if it were that JE McDonald (JEM) or Kirk T McDonald (KTM) had proposed a theory from their scientific positions." is the exact of what was written as a response. Which is the succinct reason, that fringe does not apply (at the 1st paragraph, not the section which you directed me to look at to then indicate whether of not the source could be used under the conditional considerations of that part of policy).

I already indicated the problem of stating fringe theory in Talk which is there aren't any theoreticians, the suggestion that theory exists therefore a fringe theory exists would depend on the explicit statement of a theoretical expalantion for something in reality of which the subjet of the theory isn't stated for anything to be a fringe theory within. No one is stating a theory and no-one of any field is stating anything. The source 228 belongs,as I already showed to Kirk T McDonald Professor Emeritus of High Energy Physis University Princeton. That doesn't indicate he is theorizing on the subject. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE? It's difficult to follow their comments and understand what they are trying to say. I could understand a language barrier but I think it's more the inability for them to understand the policies being explained to them or the willful ignoring of what is being explained. --ARoseWolf 21:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't seem to be understanding what everyome is stating that is true. That is because I am stating the problem is OR in various re-iterations in various comments and no-one is responding to my notice. You would also like to enter into discussion of me as the suject. Do you see I filed myself as the problem as incident? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Am I filing some suggestion you cannot understand. The article contains information which isn't observable. I do not see the information in the sources. Does anyone else see the information in the sources? That is why this incident section was begun because I filed incident if I see continuation of the problem is me, without recognition of the possibility that the incident I am filing is true (without any investigation of why false and non verifiable information exists in the article Westall UFO I will have to file every editor present to the next process of dispute. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Simpul skitsofreeneea, this noticeboard is for behavioral/conduct issues. When an editor opens a complaint, their conduct is open to review as well. Other editors examine the complaint and its context, which includes your conduct on Wikipedia. Multiple editors have brought different problems with your editing conduct to your attention, but you don't seem to be grasping any of the feedback. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  So logially the problem is the Westall article I made edits which were reverted by the editors shown in the 1st statement. What I'm stating is that in all three reverts the editors returned information which is prohibited by OR. That is what I am stating. What is your response to my accusation? Your presumption that all the comments against me have a value which I'm ignoring is simulataneoulsy an ignoring of my comments of "prohoited by OR" is the reality. So you state I should take notice of the feedback, but you or anyone else didn't verfiy the reality of the editorial situation whether or not the two reverting editors should have reverted the information into the article, now to find a block in place (still without investigating whether or not the OR problem exists); what the actual reality of the article is with regards to why I chose to make the changes. In the last revert all I did was remove the parts which were OR, to then be reverted again, then, after a brief discussion, blocked. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to help Simpul skitsofreeneea at Talk: Westall UFO (now archived), but they would have none of it. The unrelenting, disruptive combination of WP:IDHT, WP:TE, competency issues, and aspersions (see my post here for additional examples of their personal attacks) indicates that Simpul skitsofreeneea is clearly WP:NOTHERE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enough of this. I've blocked Simpul skitsofreeneea for multiple reasons. Feel free to pick your favorite. Maybe they can convince another admin that they have a WP:CLUE, but I'm not seeing it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because Simpul skitsofreeneea has continued their repetitive ramblings on their talk page, I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User:PR2021 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Persistent addition of unsourced content; too much detail (see [221]) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please inform the user on their talk page when doing this, I did it for you. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Replying to you on this one too. Nothing I added is unsourced, for everything I add I make sure to include several local and reputable sources to back up the information given. It may be persistent but that is because you keep removing the information even though it comes from legit sources including the station's website. If you didn't remove the information without asking then it wouldn't be "persistent". PR2021 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• You should have put a talk page message up before dragging them to ANI. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: By addition of the unsourced content, do you mean this section: WLII-DT#En Alerta (2024-present) (which you had reverted)? Because it seems well sourced to me. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove TPA

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

re: [222] and [223] I think tpa should be reviewed/revoked.  // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That has been done by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That was me. I revoked TPA and then had to respond to something off-Wikipedia. Checking in now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User who cannot learn what WP:V means

The problem has been analyzed at WP:FTN#Anthroposophy. My two cents are that SamwiseGSix cannot understand what WP:V means. E.g. [224]. Who's making the statement? It is SamwiseGSix's own WP:OR opinion (according to FTN). It is his own analysis, not explicitly stated in his sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Even Steiner's harshest academic critic Peter Staudenmeier recognizes that many features of Steiner's thinking were "anti-racist" - Steiner indeed made public calls to 'struggle against.. prejudice' and 'the tendency to discriminate based on.. race' during a time when the US President Woodrow Wilson was actually actively segregating the US Federal Government - plenty of WP:V evidence does appear accessible in this regard, starting even with the harshest critique itself along with additional original sources/publications: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/db1dad79-53bf-451e-b95b-6982dd24afe3/content SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

what has this to do with "Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded", what is this thread about? Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your source does not claim that Wilson segregated the federal government. Sheer WP:OR.

See also [225]. This is an unrepentant pusher of original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson was of course actively segregating the US Federal Government during the 1910's which planty of WP:V sources can verify - Steiner made the above anti-racist statements (public calls to 'struggle against.. prejudice' and 'the tendency to discriminate based on.. race') in a prominent book he published (Knowledge of Higher Worlds) in 1914 and re-published 1918. Not seeing any original research here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, but unless a WP:RS (not meaning Anthroposophist publications) compares Steiner to Wilson, that is sheer WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Steiner made many anti-racist statements including in books published in 1914 and 1918. Woodrow Wilson was actively segregating the US Federal Government starting in 1912 and continuing throughout his terms into the 1920's. These are just simply basic historical facts, which vast amounts of WP:V sources can easily verify. SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that there is a difference between "it's false" and "it's original research"? Or are we speaking in vain, and nothing except indeffing helps? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you seeking to assert that including basic historical facts here for which vast amounts of WP:V sources exist, is in contrast to the WP:OR policies? Upon reading them it does not appear to be the case hm, please do include some of the policy language / references here if possible SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, then the conclusion is that nothing else helps. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

More precisely, Wikipedia can only report those historical facts which have been explicitly described in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia based on Truth, but upon reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

SamwiseGSix appears to have admitted in this comment at FTN that they had never read at least one of the citations they used for article content. MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

wow. Paraphrasing: I'm sure this is what the source I read about some time ago but haven't read says. Narky Blert (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jeez. Are we allowed to use the words 'utterly clueless' here, or does that violate WP:CIVIL? Either way, combined with the above responses, it appears that no, SamwiseGSix does not understand WP:V. Or much else regarding how Wikipedia is supposed to be written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

well, that explains why the sources don't support what they wrote—blindlynx —blindlynx 01:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that they are just listing random sources now, [[226]] includes a sources about Marx and one about Woodrow Wilson neither of which make any mention of Steiner, anthroposophy or other stuff related to him—blindlynx 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: Seen what you write, I propose a siteban for SamwiseGSix. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu sorry? —blindlynx 16:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

On a side note SamwiseGSix bombing in several hundred page sources without referencing page numbers—while knowing that they don't support their inclusions—is counter productive—blindlynx 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

These are WP:V sources that demonstrate Rudolf Steiner's vast body of anti-racist statements, especially in comparison with those of thinkers like Woodrow Wilson (who was actively segregating the US Federal Government during Steiner's life) and K. Marx and F. Engels, who expressed quite shocking ideas on race - Engels even calling for genocide. No original research, just historical facts 'explicitly described in reliable sources' meeting WP:V standards, and helping facilitate a very important NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia here.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamwiseGSix: Meaning I support a siteban for lacking basic WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

They do not. The relevant ones clearly discuss how he has both racist and anti-racist positions in his work not just anti-racist ones as you claim. The Wilson and marx refs have fuck all to do with steiner—blindlynx 16:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not claimed that he his only anti-racist - just adding NPOV to demonstrate that he made some statements that we would consider racist by our enlightened and progressive points of view today, while also making many anti-racist statements, which are very progressive in relation to the mainstream thought and leadership of his time. Balanced NPOV is important for the Encyclopedia here.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamwiseGSix, you deciding to compare Wilson (et al) with Steiner is original research. You need a reliable source that compares Wilson (et al) with Steiner. See the difference? Schazjmd (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: It is not a difference he is willing/prepared to learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok @Schazjmd, and perhaps such research could be quite easily publishable. In the meantime does that mean we should go about adding "Racism" and "Thoughts on Race" sections to the biographies of historical leaders like Marx, Engels, Wilson, and all the rest? It appears some kind of non-neutral exception is being made for Steiner here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Siteban

• Support as proposer. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  On what grounds? It appears you are not able to demonstrate the WP:V or WP:OR concerns you raise here then, is that correct SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Blindlynx: He is an unrepentant pusher of original research, and even in the 12th hour he does not understand what the problem is. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Govvy

I am really fed-up with these guys posting to my talk page, User:Profavi1 and User:TheOneSome1, can someone please tell them to leave me alone please. Thank you. And I am pretty sure TheOneSome1, who just started editing in January appears to be a sock, knows too much for a new editor. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In their first edit, TheOneSome1 claims to be Bedriczwaleta, an LTA. Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I was focused (at least what I believe) in sending the message. I could send an email to that user, but what happened happened and can't be reverted. At least I won't cry if things happen. TheOneSome1 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

you sent an email to Profavi1. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 20:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

you failed to give a notice to either, I have given the alert to TheOneSome1, but when going to Profavi1's page, it seems they were blocked from editing your talk page. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 19:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I just saw that block now, my frustration is making me negligent, as for TheOneSome, I looked at the contrib history, saw the account was created beginning of Jan and knew about increased protection, page moving, so that didn't sit right with me. :/ Govvy (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

1) The situation only began because you made a grammatical mistake in your edits to Timo Werner, stubbornly insisted it was correct, and engaged in an edit war, then proceeded to insult me about my education!

2) I have already been blocked from your talk page for a week as a result, and the situation is resolved; why are you escalating it further pointlessly? Profavi1 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheOneSome1, based on their declaration that they are an LTA. Whether they're Bedriczwaleta or not I don't know, but if that's what they assert then I am happy to act on that basis - will request global lock. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nice! Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 20:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree with the OP's complaint against Profavi1, but this is a bit more complicated. Govvy, if you're going to leave up accusations such as I don't trust you, as you appear to be a suck puppet, it seems unfair to deny the other editor a chance to respond. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I missed the second ping in the middle of that comment. My apologies. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I never said ProFavi is a sock, I only refer to TheOneSome1 as a sock. As for ProFavi, people can put all sorts of boxes in their user-space, he has one saying he went to Oxford Uni, but based on the way he writes, and posts, I felt I didn't believe that he went. That's just my feeling, he tells me I made a grammatical mistake, but there is no mistake in my editing in a grammatical sense. People seem to be following some weird MOS and not considering the sentence structure when they simply put in the extra loan in the prose. :/ Besides, I think the admins have done a fair job here, I don't think this needs to be pushed anywhere else. Govvy (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

TheOneSome1 has been dealt with; I suggest Govvy and Profavi1 agree not to interact with one another before a formal interaction ban is introduced. GiantSnowman 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Govvy, I haven't look at your interactions with ProFavi at all, but a random thought: going to Oxford and making grammatical mistakes are not mutually exclusive. I don't imagine that their geology, mathematics or biochemistry programmes involve much discussion of the finer points of encyclopedic writing. Implying dishonesty without stronger evidence than that is not really civil. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

And going to Oxford and being correct about grammar, as ProFavi was, is even more common. Everyone has the right to say that another editor shouldn't post anything other than required messages on their talk page, so he was rightly blocked from your talk page before this report was even raised, but you, Govvy, should make sure that you are on firm ground yourself before presuming to lecture other people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Profavi1 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

More crucially, I didn't make a grammatical mistake! Profavi1 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Teleoid disruption on John A. McDougall

Teleoid is disrupting the John A. McDougall article and talk-page. This issue has been going on for nearly 4 days. This type of WP:POV behaviour is disrupting and has spilled out onto talk-pages and other noticeboards.

• Teloid has been repeatedly removed sources critical of McDougall's diet from the article using edit summaries claiming "malicious arguments" have been used [227], [228], [229], [230]
• See diffs above, white-washing attempts have included removing mention of "fad diet" from the article multiple times.
• User filed a false complaint at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard [231] claiming incorrectly that a reliable nutritional textbook did not list of McDougall diet as a fad. After they were proven wrong about this, they quickly dropped that route and started trying to remove other critical sources [232] [233].
• After this failed the user added unreliable content [234].
• User has a history of removing old comments from talk-pages, example [235]
• User has a poor understanding about medical consensus with strong opinions about this fad diet, claiming it has saved lives [236]
• User ignores WP:MEDRS, WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV
• User has canvassed off-site on a forum asking for people to help them edit the article

There is a long disruptive pattern here of deletions and reversions from this user. I do not believe this behaviour is good-faith, if you check the history of the article you can see this has been going on for days now as on the talk-page. This is not a one off event. Multiple users have reached out to this user to explain policy but they ignore all advice. I suggest a topic ban from editing John A. McDougall or more broadly anything related to diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Teleoid's edit warring and battleground attitude is certainly growing tiresome, as this thread, as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Intentional harrassment by Hemiauchenia above, demonstrate.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to address this:

Teloid has been repeatedly removed sources critical of McDougall's diet from the article using edit summaries claiming "malicious arguments" have been used [228], [229], [230], [231]

Agreed.

:See diffs above, white-washing attempts have included removing mention of "fad diet" from the article multiple times.

That's highly opinionated and charged language, I disagree.

:User filed a false complaint at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard [232] claiming incorrectly that a reliable nutritional textbook did not list of McDougall diet as a fad. After they were proven wrong about this, they quickly dropped that route and started trying to remove other critical sources [233] [234].

The complaint was real. Then I was outnumbered and removed what was questionable in my best opinion, not out of desire to destroy an article or white-wash.

:After this failed the user added unreliable content [235].

I disagree strongly.

:User has a history of removing old comments from talk-pages, example [236]

I correct to clarify what I mean to say yes, not aware it's against the rules. Not hiding anything.

:User has a poor understanding about medical consensus with strong opinions about this fad diet, claiming it has saved lives [237]

I'm merely questioning, and yes this particular diet has saved lives of people I know personally but I'm not posting this on the article, so taken out of context.

:User ignores WP:MEDRS, WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV

I disagree and can say the same about you.

:User has canvassed off-site on a forum asking for people to help them edit the article

I have no clue what this is about.

==

I think Psychologist Guy hates McDougall, and by extension hates me for agreeing with McDougall. He uses generalisations about "dangers" of the diet and the few weak sources he managed to scramble himself (including one textbook, which barely mentions the man in some table, while actually allowing that his diet might be completely acceptable, i.e. not to be necessarily avoided). So - slight misrepresentation there!

My opinion is that the page is lopsided and defamatory. It's completely out of balance.

Again, I apologise for getting my point in a clumsy manner, I'm not good at this wikipedia business, but the person above is giving me a crash course, so thanks for that. Teleoid (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. From what I've seen described here and the other ANI thread Ponyo mentioned, this looks like a pretty clear case of an editor being a time sink not only for the community, but especially for those editing in the topic. I do think we need to be more mindful of how damaging editors with an ax-grinding attitude like this can be, especially when experienced editors are stuck having to manage that behavior (and how that affects editor retention/morale). If this continues, it's just going to inflame things even more.

I think the main question here is how wide the ban should be. Is it just for McDougall, or a wider area that would deal with fad diets? Others who have been dealing with this would have a better guage on what the best scope is. A broader ban might be more helpful from what I've seen. KoA (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the comment above I think Psychologist Guy hates McDougall just after I posted, that's pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about Psychologist Guy. When I see editors engaging in tactics like that on top of what I already addressed, I feel like we're reaching WP:NOTHERE overall instead of just nuances of a topic ban. KoA (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really feel I'm being targeted by @Psychologist Guy ever since he was aiding harrassment towards me by @Hemiauchenia which ended up on this very noticeboard, he was right by his side every step of the way, spilling half truths and distorting everything I say, quietly supporting me being called trash and worse.

It's not right to have these self-appointed gatekeepers who bully newcomers or question their dogmatic attitudes.

I don't even care so much about the article as much as I'm appaled by the level of discrimination against the subject.

It's lopsided and prejudiced, so at least you can make it neutral. Teleoid (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per KoA. I'll also point out that this is something that could reasonably be dealt with at AE, if the discussion here falls into the pattern of what often happens at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KoA. Classic battleground stuff. As for the scope of such a ban, I'd say diet in general: if Teleoid wants to contribute, they need to learn how to work collaboratively, and that would be best done somewhere where they don't feel the need to right great wrongs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, absolutely. Suggested scope: plant-based diets, broadly construed. It should have stopped here. Instead, there was this and this and edit warring [237][238] and restoring a fringe source [239] and simply refusing to get the point [240]. I think it's premature to speak of WP:NOTHERE; it rather seems to be a typical case of a new user who doesn't understand why their favorite POV is being 'discrimated against' because they do not understand how we evaluate sources. Teleoid should know that they are under the obligation to learn how we evaluate sources, by reading our policy pages but especially also by listening to other users. Evidently, it's best for everyone that they learn this in non-controversial subject areas. Apart from the TBan, I would advise them to stay away from anything that falls under Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on diets and nutrition, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KoA and Cullen328, broadly construed. User seems unable to edit in this topic area without vilifying other editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef. This[241] comment, even after all that has happened, gives no confidence a TBAN will be enough to prevent further problems. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have given Teleoid a 72 hour block for that personal attack. Discussion of other sanctions can continue. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, this has been going on too long already. I think an indef block is probably over the top at this point, but it would be easy enough to apply afterwards if disruption moves elsewhere. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Two big rangeblocks requested for Dominican IPs

• 2001:1308:2C00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2001:1308:2D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• User:Elchezinazo
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elchezinazo

Elchezinazo was blocked five years ago but has evaded the block with sockpuppets and IPs from the Dominican Republic. Special:Contributions/186.149.133.80 was blocked a week ago along with a raft of socks. Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2D06:3500:3D67:19D1:6B7D:8154 was identified as a problem but was not blocked.

Since then, the Elchezinazo-style of disruption at articles has continued, focused on the music of Barry White. Several /64 ranges are involved so I am asking for larger ranges to be blocked, specifically Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 and Special:Contributions/2001:1308:2C00:0:0:0:0:0/40. Very little collateral damage would result from these large blocks. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of non-Turkish names by Omnibenevolence

User:Omnibenevolence has been systematically removing the names of places in Turkey in languages other than Turkish (e.g. [242][243][244]), citing MOS:LEADCLUTTER, yet at the same time adding Turkish names to the lead of other articles (e.g. [245]). Given the contentious status of minority languages in Turkey, I think this raises obvious POV issues, seemingly confirmed by Omnibenevolence describing languages such as Kurdish and Armenian (widely-spoken in parts of Turkey, but politically repressed) as foreign, not important and irrelevant in the above edit summaries, and on his talk page justifying his edits with Turkey is a single country with a single official language. The MOS:LEADCLUTTER excuse is a red herring – MOS:LEADLANG encourages adding relevant local names to the lead, and if the issue is 'clutter' then the guidelines suggest using a footnote, not excising them. The MOS guidelines could perhaps be clearer, but WP:NPOV is crystal.

Semsûrî and Uness232 tried to talk to them about this at User talk:Semsûrî#Recent place-name deletions and I tried at User talk:Omnibenevolence#Removal of non-Turkish names, but unfortunately they are sticking to their guns and edit-warring on individual articles.[246][247][248][249][250] There are already a lot of articles affected here, and I think admin intervention is needed to nip this in the bud. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you resorted to ANI immediately after being reasoned with in my talk page and being unable to find a response to both my points and Uness232's shows that you're a bad faith editor. I have only removed foreign names from the lead of cities where said alternative names (be it historical, foreign, etcetera) are expanded upon in their own sections (such as Name, Toponymy , History, Etymology, etcetera). The instances which you've shown as supposedly edit warring are not edit warring, and I refrained from my edits in Bingöl once my edit was reverted twice, and I reverted your edits (based on no consensus and in contradiction with guidelines) where you only cited my talk page in the edit summary. Further, it is ironic that you claim to be worried about my supposed edit warring, then went on to edit war in those very articles you highlighted after writing the ANI here [251][252][253][254] Clearly a hypocritical and problematic user who has difficulties adhering to guidelines.

As WP:NCGN holds, alternative names should be either in the lead or in their own sections. There are many such articles that use these justifications to remove names of the city in another language, e.g. the Turkish name of Thessaloniki is omitted from the lead. I already outlined on my talk page that I would remove foreign/historical names of a city in the world if they are already mentioned in another paragraph of the lead or other sections of the article since it clutters (MOS:LEADCLUTTER) the lead. This proves that I'm not POV-pushing, and also this method is more beneficial than a one-off mention in the lead and is in accordance with MOS and naming conventions. (Omnibenevolence) 09:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Calling another editor "bad faith", "hypocritical" and "problematic" are serious personal attacks which should be retracted. Narky Blert (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I did not have a 'point' against @Joe Roe per se, at least not in the sense that there was any dispute, and I do not appreciate being painted this way in this discussion. I thought (and still do think) that problems exist at a more fundamental level and are related to policy, guidelines and convention, not necessarily editor behavior; and saw Omnibenevolence's edits as unproductive but understandable due to the convoluted and often contradictory nature of these specific guidelines and conventions and also per WP:AGF. This is why I did not open this section. Joe Roe took a different approach (and he can), but that does not mean that I found the edits okay; simply that I think action against individual editors for trying to navigate inconsistently applied, vague and convoluted guidelines and conventions is less productive to the encyclopedia than arguing for changes in these guidelines/conventions.

I do, however, find Omnibenevolence's accusations of "bad faith" unacceptable, and I also believe that Joe Roe is being hasty in describing MOS:LEADCLUTTER as a red herring; this argument (though not exactly with the same words) has been used before, it seems, in perfectly good faith. Uness232 (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment; I've filed an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that Kurds and Kurdistan are designated a contentious topic; I have just given alert to the editor. Armenia is within a scope of two contentious topics, Eastern Europe and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, though I am not sure any of these would apply here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User insists on adding unsourced genres

Stardustwk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done this many times and been warned many times, yet he just added an unsourced genre to an album article again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Love_Supreme&diff=prev&oldid=1195120156 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU problem, user is on the mobile app, so they (probably) won't see the messages and won't know why they're blocked (if it comes to that). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ritchie333 A lot of those problems have been fixed recently; this is a logged-in user using mobile web, so they should be able to see message alerts. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct label

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

---

Vandalism only account. Please refer to their contrib history. A couple of examples include wherethe have made edits to change the Prime Minister of Australia's name from Albanese to Albasleezy and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_of_Australia&curid=18453&diff=1195124706&oldid=1195124586 the leader of the opposition's name from Peter Dutton to Voldemort. Editor is WP:NOTHERE. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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