User:JulieMinkai/ANI Hall of Fame 2

I made this page because the first page was getting too long.

Discussions are from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and related archives, in no particular order.

This seems familiar...

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

---

here is the story:

basing on the experience I acquired about sources, writing a gay porn bio myself, I decided to get rid of all the not notable gay porn bio (there are so many, believe me). So, I started reading them, checking out the sources and when I found one that wasn't notable I put an advice on my page AlejandroLeloirRey, I left a message on the article's discussion page to ask if people had more sources and I looked for more sources myself. if after one or two weeks I couldn't find any significant source I nominated the article.

Anyone can see the result of my job here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname=%20your%20AFD%20stats

everything was fine until @Gleeanon409:: entered into a discussion, since then he kept following me around accusing me to nominate with out doing WP:BEFORE. I asked him to check my statistics to see that my nomination are pretty reasonable but most of all I asked him, politely, 1000 times, to argue the sources and not me. obviously he kept accusing me in any discussion (more than once per discussion). the first time he accused me I also left a message in his talk page to ask him if he wanted to help me out to find better sources for articles before I nominated them but he never answered. I asked for help on the teahouse but no one could help me.

So, how does this story end?

I can't simply stand his personal attacks no more, so I have insulted him. for this reason I will be banned from wikipedia. obviously, for our community telling a person he is an A.H. or to F.O. is way worst that stalking a person for weeks pulling his never to the point he is ok with being kicked out as long as he gets rid of its stalker. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I just saw that an admin here said he (Gleeanon409) should have been blocked for edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#More_eyes_needed_on_Patrisse_Cullors --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) @AlejandroLeloirRey: You're required (see above) to notify other editors you're starting discussions about at WP:ANI. Another editor has done this for you since you forgot, but keep it mind for future reference. You should also try and provide WP:DIFFS which are examples of the types of behavior you're reporting. "Diffs" are like evidence and if you don't provide any evidence, administrators are not going to go digging through Wikipedia to find it for you. You should also probably take a look at WP:AOHA because someone examining your contributions is not automatically considered "stalking" or "harassment". That's another reason for providing diffs; they will help administrators see if this is really a case of WP:HARASS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: thank you for helping me. examining my contribution is fine as long as u do not keep accusing me of the same things again and again in different discussions, especially after other editors told u that my behavior is perfectly fine. I will look for some examples. thank you again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: ok, these are the first examples I could find. as u can see I explained him why his accusation are wrong more than once and I asked him to argue the article not me more than once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Barry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raging_Stallion_Studios

and this is the last one (notice that in this last one i offended him and swear at him and because of this I had a warning so I deleted my messages). As u can see Gene93k told him to discuss the article and not me also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Kincaid

I don't care for having him blocked but please, I need an administrator to tell him that what he is doing is not good and he needs to change his behavior: argue the article nominated not the nominator. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• TLDR - Gleeanon409 has been accusing AlejandroLeloirRey of making disruptive AFD nominations, e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. AlejandroLeloirRey's AFD nom stats show 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I encountered the op through watchlisting the LGBTQ article alerts, specifically their string of AfD’s targeting gay male porn actors. As I’ve previously stated elsewhere I have no issue with removing the ones that no longer arise to Wikipedia standards, bravo for eliminating crap articles. But their goal seems to be to systematically remove them all or at least as many as possible. (See their talk page for evidence of this.)

Where I sharply disagree, is with the OP’s tactics where they apparently don’t follow WP:Before—specifically searching for and identifying sourcing—and treating AfD as clean-up. Also their being combative towards those they disagree including being rude and dismissive, and repeatedly violating WP:AGF all while arguing and repeatedly filling the discussion with WP:TL/DR walls of text frustrating the entire process. Additionally they exhibit a breathtaking inability to use logic in their targets: The world’s largest gay porn production company Raging Stallion (RS), a principal of RS and Hall of Fame winner, another principal of RS and Hall of Fame/Wall of Fame winner, another Hall of Fame/Wall of Fame winner, another Hall of Fame winner. Much of this seems to be an odd vendetta against Wikipedia for trying to delete Carlo Masi.

pinging: @Kbabej:, @Ipsign:, @Chris7179:, @Toughpigs:, @Bearian:, @GoldenAgeFan1:, @Britishfinance:, @Cardiffbear88:, @Sharouser:, @QueerEcofeminist:, @Theroadislong:, @Kleuske:, @Sulfurboy:. Please feel free to comment.

WP:VOTESTACK???? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a vote. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing ???? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I found this bundle of edits of particular interest. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Since porn bio has been deprecated things like being in the Hall of Fame of whatever prize doesn't prove notability itself anymore, this is why I don't take that parameter into account when I nominate an article (I told him 1000 times). About the text wall, we both showed to have that problem more than once. I am trying to do it less (it is not an excuse but English is not my mother tongue). about my swearing and offending message I got a warning for those, I removed them and I admitted I wrote those message right from the begging (see above). pluse, I wrote them today, when I lost my nerve and finally lost control. I know I shouldn't have and I apology for that but I have been stalked for quite a while now. moreover, 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April (about 10 nom per month) should convince anybody to stop following me around accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations. For all the other accusation I can't see where they come from. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm unclear as to why I was pinged to this. Granted, I've had to take a leave of absence due to working in a field involving the COVID outbreak, so I might have totally forgotten how I'm involved. If you could clarify my involvement or what level of comment you need from me, that would be greatly appreciated. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You’ve interacted with one or both of us on the associated afd’s, if you have input to offer it would be welcome, if not is fine as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, Such mass pings are not acceptable as it is canvasing, usually I would have refrained from commenting on such pings but here I will point out to few issues I feel of some importance.

• I was part of the Carlo Masi afd debate and I still think that article should be deleted as it was created with clear promotional intent and by the user who has connections with the subject of the article. they have confessed it on their talk page too. the link is here Special:Diff/951412768
• Edits on 8 wikiprojects all of them only on the Carlo Masi Page.
• Blocked on commons and itwiki for socking. [[9]] sock was created to upload Carlo Masi's photos.
• Here, they started series of AFD's in revange of afd of Carlo Masi.
• They are only editing pages related to pornbio's and nothing else.
• Definitely the language they are using on talkpages and their continuous haunting to anyone coming in their way is not acceptable at all.
• All of it forces me to suggest at least a topic ban on the concerned user and for a cross-wiki promotional activity, ideally they should be globally blocked. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I pinged those who seemed to have interacted with the OP, across the less than ten AfDs at issue, I felt it would be votestacking to only invite those on one side.
• I find your report compelling and certainly hope someone can find a path forward. A global block might be appropriate given the interactions I’ve seen. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409's "stalking", as shown in Levivich's list of diffs above, is just commenting on three of Alejandro's AfD discussions, and chiding him for not following WP:BEFORE. Two of those AfD discussions (Rod Barry and Raging Stallion Studios) were closed as keep; the second one was even withdrawn by Alejandro. The third one (Tim Kincaid) also seems headed for Keep. It is possible to get a decent hit rate on AfD nominations and still make some mistakes. Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack.

I believe that Alejandro is a bit zealous in wanting to delete as many gay porn bios as possible. He argues a lot with people voting Keep, and often refuses to accept other people's opinions on sources. (See WP:BLUDGEON.) I think that the process would be smoother, and get more positive results, if Alejandro would simply make his case for deletion in the nomination, and then allow the discussion to proceed without trying to dispute every Keep vote. If Alejandro could do that, and Gleeanon could participate in the discussion without making sarcastic comments about BEFORE, then the world would be peaceful once more. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: "Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack" correct, when u say it once or twice not when u say it 1000 times in different discussions, especially after I showed u my stats that proves I do WP:BEFORE. u know I am right, I really expected more from u. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that once again Alejandro is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and blowing this far out of proportion. As far as I can tell, Gleeanon criticized Alejandro a total of three times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

not correct. I gave tree examples od discussions where Gleeanon409 criticized me for the same reason multiple times in each discussion... that doesn't sum up to three in any system. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my interaction with Alejandro at the Raging Stallion AfD, I asked twice if a WP:BEFORE had been done, and Alejandro responded with "Is this a trial?" I think Toughpigs' suggestion for Alejandro allowing the discussions to proceed without bludgeoning other editors would be good advice to follow. Also, I reminded Alejandro in the Raging Stallion AfD not all gay porn bios are the same, and BEFORE should be completed on every AfD nomination at the very least. --Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: Please ping me if mentioning me or replying. I will not be watching this page. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbabej: the conversation we had is here for everybody to read RS. I was being personally attacked by Gleeanon409 (as usual) and u started personally attacking me too. I had to explain my actions once over again (this is why I end up being accused of text walling) this is why at the end I told u that I was not on a trial. u drop it immediately, so I was (and I am) fine with u. As a personal note, I asked u politely to add the sources u found to the article but u and Gleeanon409 made a big fuss of it, like if I was asking who knows what. So at the end I added the sources myself (after asking u the permission), I asked u kindly to double check what I wrote as my english is not good and u never answered... that is not the best conversation u had. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, asking if you have done a BEFORE is not a personal attack. I would encourage you to read the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section on WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Asking if you've followed policy, which it certainly seemed you did not, is not a personal attack. As for you asking me "to add the sources u found to the article", that is not a requirement of AfD; as Gleeanon stated in that AfD discussion, only the existence of RS needs to be found, not that they have to appear in the article. I would encourage you to read WP:BEFORE, which states "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Kbabej (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kbabej: Asking me once is not a personal attack, asking me twice, after in the same discussion I was asked 10 times and I already gave a long answer is pretty much different. are we here to improve wikipedia? than if I find better sources I add them. Is that a requirement? may be it is not but if it improves an article I do it. the point is the fuss u and Gleeanon did about it. I asked you politely to do it, and u reacted like if I asked u to give me a kidney so I did it myself. the problem here is the attitude. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I would politely suggest some introspection as to how you interact with other editors here. Before, in this very discussion, you stated "so I was (and I am) fine with u". Now you are saying "the problem here is the attitude." Nowhere, even once, in the Raging Stallion AfD, did I personally attack or make accusations against you. I simply reminded you about the steps for an AfD nomination and if they had been followed (which they obviously had not). Calling people "r*******", swearing, bludgeoning, and refusing to listen are not acceptable behavior on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I am so tired of this way of reading in a distort way what I say and having to explain you again and again. No, u didn't personally attack me. No, I don't have an issue with u (this is why I reported here Gleanon and not u) and finally no, I didn't like ur attitude but that doesn't mean I couldn't handle it or that I automatically I have a problem with u. I believe u had a bad attitude in that situation, this is it, not a big deal. not a big issue, not a big problem, not a personal attack and not something I would report here. u simply reminded me the steps before AFD 2 times, after Gleanon reminded me 10 times and after I answered him about it 1000 times and spite my stats tells I am nominating reasonably... all in the same discussion, nevertheless, u left me alone after that discussion so I am fine with it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Alejandro, a little over an hour ago, you said that you would stop bludgeoning the discussion, but here you are again. It seems like you can't help yourself. I think that this is a problem. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And one minute after I posted that, you changed the timestamp on your previous post to make it look like your promise to stop bludgeoning was posted after this. This is not good faith behavior. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

if u check u will see I have to make many changes when I write because my english is not that good and after I read what I posted I need to change it. I didn't change the timestamp, I simply added something to the post. if I changed the timestamp than it was not intentional. Since Gleeanon409 called u all to speak against me I became the subject od the discussion and if u are the person that people talk about it is hard not to answer, especially since my words are changed, misread and lies are told. that said, all of you are talking ill about me... accusing me of? nothing but bad nomination, even though my stats show i am a good nominator. why don't we speak about the reason I started this post? because of my stats Gleeanon409 has to stop accusing me of bad nominations and start talking about the articles I nominate not about me. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You are making this about you. You keep talking about your amazing 77% deletion rate, which is not impressive. It means that you're wrong about one out of four times, and since you tend to nominate a batch of about four articles at a time, that means you're getting something wrong pretty much every time you make a batch of nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: ok, let's make this obvious. do u honestly think I am making disruptive AFD nominations? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that your bludgeoning behavior indicates that you are very personally invested in deleting as many gay porn articles as you can, and your insistence on having the last word makes it difficult to work with you as a colleague. This report that you made at ANI, turning three instances into "1000" and trying to get Gleeanon sanctioned, is certainly disruptive. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: I was 99% sure u are unable to openly lie. so, if I am not making disruptive AFD nominations why Gleeanon keeps accusing me of doing so? about the number of times u r confused: those are 3 EXAMPLES (it is not exhaustive) where he repetitively (more than once each time) accuses me of disruptive AFD nominations. that doesn't sum up to 3 in any system. I know u r an honest person and u gave me good advice in the past and I don't forget it, I only want him to speak about the articles I nominate and not about me. plus, yes, I want to delete as many not notable porn bio as possible. I am not nominating bios of death people because i feel weird about it but I wish someone did the same I am doing with straight porn also and with any other nice. what I would like to achieve is an academically speaking reliable wikipedia and to do that we need articles to have reasonable sources. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting through. Yes, I believe that your behavior is disruptive. Yes, this problem is about you. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: I see. than I really should be banned from wikipedia. people here should help improving wikipedia not being disruptive like me. u will see, an admin will read all this and I will be banned at the end. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: just before I get banned: if one out of 10 articles on gay porn bio are not notable (10% is a lot but if I assume less my argument is even stronger). u said that out of 4 nomination 3 were good and 1 was bad (u r counting as bad also the not consensus but still). this rate with a random nomination has a probability of 4!/3!1! (1/10)^3(9/10) = 0.36%, now I did this 10 times in a raw, so the probability that i nominated randomly is of 0.0036^10 (this is an approssimation correct calculus is 40!/30!10! 0.1^30 0.9^10 ... so, math says: no, I didn't nominate randomly. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, here you are displaying advanced mathematical equations and Carlo Masi—the article that seems to be the heart of all this—is a mathematician. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ah, ah, ha advanced mathematics? this is something that any Italian would do in high school. it is called a binomial distribution and it gives u the probability of having m-good results out of n proves when the probability of one good result is P... no, this is not advanced math. at least in italy this is average education in math (liceo scientifico=scientific high school) --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable. Your English skills seemed to improve exponentially here. Ironically while discussing math. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

ok, I don't know how this works but, should I ping people who can talk positively for me or just let the facts and the examples here above talk for me?. is this a voting process? Once again, "77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April" proves I am not making disruptive AFD nominations (why are we even still talking about it?). Could I have done a better job sometimes? of course, like anybody else but this doesn't mean I didn't do WP:BEFORE. do I argue too much with people (text walls)? yes, just like Gleeanon409 does. But at the end of the day we are not here to decide if I am perfect because I am not, we are here to let know Gleeanon409 that he should argue the article nominated not the nominator and stop accusing me of something I obviously don't do, just to pull my nerve and provoke a reaction from me to make me kick out of wikipedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe I’ve been pinged as I have contributed to some of these AfD debates. I have some sympathy for AlejandroLeloirRey because I also nominate a number of articles for AfD, and there are some editors who throw around WP:BEFORE whenever they find any source. Highly frustrating. And I can see why they find some of Gleeanon409‘s comments aggravating. However, its undeniable that AlejandroLeloirRey has made some poor nomination choices, and have bludgeoned editors who make Keep votes. This needs to stop. And there needs to be some action taken against this comment. Saying that an article looks like it’s been written by a “r******* 10 year old” is grossly offensive language. However the editor thinks he’s been provoked, this offensive language is completely unacceptable and I hope some action will be taken against this comment. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You left out the part in that diff where he calls Gleanon, who showed admirable restraint, about every other possible swear word. Setting aside the stalking charge, which seems to be false, the incivility here is stunning. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree ThatMontrealIP. We all know that AfD can get heated at times but the level of incivility and bludgeoning from this one editor is completely unacceptable and action needs to be taken. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: told me I am WP:BLUDGEONing this "discussion" (is this even a discussion? I thought an admin would have looked at the examples I gave, listened Gleanon and took a decision) so I am not going to answer anymore to the army that Gleanon called to defend him here. even though, after the army call I become the subject of the discussion so it is hard not to speak. let me just ask the adimin to look at my stats to decide if I was making disruptive AFD nominations and than to look how many times I had to defend myself from this accusation by Gleanon. thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• AlejandroLeloirRey I can’t speak for others but I’m certainly not part of Gleeanon409’s “army” - from what I can see, each editor has made an independent comment based on previous AfD interactions. Sadly your comments in this thread alone, and your disgusting language used against Gleeanon, seem to have proven the point. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cardiffbear88: I had more than 20 gay porn bio deleted, of course I have many opponents. I also created a porn bio which gave me even more opponents. what have I been accuded of so far? lets' summaries it: 1) nominating as a revenge because carlo masi was nominated. fist, can u read my mind and know what is in there? i explained more than once I want to get rid of all the not notable bios as I wish wikipedia to be academically reliable and that is possible only having a certain type of sourcing. 2)creating carlo masi profile as a promotion and to be connected to him: i send him some messages on FB months ago before creating his bio just to be sure he didn't mind and he answered. is that being connected? lol. promotion? that article has the best sources in the world and each thing reported is taken from a very very very reliable source. we have reliable sources deep covering him for years from porn to theater to university to his weddings. 3) WP:BLUDGEONing: when a message is directed to you is still WP:BLUDGEONing if u answer? plus, my opponent does it just as much as i do it... if not more. 4) the most important: making disruptive AFD nominations: my stats tell u I am not doing it. now, can we talk of how much my opponent kept accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations in any discussion repetitively ? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

AlejandroLeloirRey none of this reply actually addresses any of the points that editors have tried to make. The notability of various gay porn bios is actually irrelevant in all of this. What’s frustrating and upsetting is your grossly offensive language towards Gleeanon and your aggressive bludgeoning of anyone who disagrees with you. Can I please politely suggest that you try to take this feedback on board, take a deep breath and then move on with your life because this discussion isn’t going anywhere. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate ur message. I explained that for my aggressive messages I was punished with a warning and I removed them, I explained I wrote those message when I finally lost the grip after asking Gleeanon to stop for the 1000 time. Could u give me an example of me being aggressive apart form those specific message we just addressed? so far so many people said a lot of things about me but I am the only one who actually gave a link where u can double check that what I said it is true. about bludgeoning I will try to let people tell their opinion without interfering but when I will be nominated I will answer as I believe it is fair to answer if they are talking with or about u. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment of all the people who have been involved into the discussion so far ThatMontrealIP and Levivich are the only two who has not been pinged by the opponent. when I will be banned i will like to know (if possible) exactly the reason why. Of all the accusations I received I didn't see any evidence, apart from my swearing at my opponent which i have admitted, apologized and deleted from the very beginning and for which I received a warning--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If there is ever an ANI Hall of Fame for threads, I nominate this one.   // Timothy :: talk  02:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hold my beer. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to give it back?   // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Alright, if you're looking for uninvolved editors to voice an opinion, allow me. I've been very active at AfD over the years, and it is not an area of Wikipedia for the thin-skinned. People are going to disagree with you. People will disagree with you for stupid reasons. People will vote based on the most superficial of glances at the article. (And it's NOTHING like it was back around 2005-2008, when Keep closes based on "It's useful," "It does no harm" were common.) Since it's common for people to look out for AfDs in areas in which they're interested, if you go after a particular topic, you're going to see some of the same people -- for instance, I'm alerted with every ice hockey- and Massachusetts-related AfD. Heck, at any time in the last decade, an ice hockey AfD might get me, DJSasso, Resolute, Patken4, GoodDay, Alaney4K and a relatively small handful of editors commenting.

  That Gleeanon shows up for AfDs in a topic area s/he's interested in is not some personal attack on you. Even if it was, it wouldn't have warranted that vicious attack. Your best move right now is not to do what you've been doing in those AfDs -- and what you're doing here -- and argue out every comment and every point. It's to say, simply, "I'm sorry, I was out of line, and I won't do it again." Full stop. Ravenswing 05:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: for my swearing messages where I called him name I'm sorry, I was out of line, and I won't do it again. For everything else I am fully right. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, you're likely to find out how far that will get you. Ravenswing 06:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am not 100% sure of what that means but I think u r telling me that this debate is concluded and I should move on. also that if i keep writing it will be considered disruptive. as i am sure u r giving me advises for my good I will take it and move on and stop answering. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It appears that I am late to the party. Personally, I think some of the actors nominated are notable, but it's hard to find reliable sources, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – AlejandroLeloirRey, buona sera. O, piutosto, buon giorno. You asked above, "So, how does this end?" Here's one possible way. I think we can wrap this up, *if* you can agree to a condition. Maybe you are hot-blooded IRL (= "in real life") and you yell and scream, and then it all blows over, and everybody forgets about it. Knowing the culture, a little bit, I've seen this, and sometimes all the Sturm und Drang (whoops, wrong intercultural metaphor!) doesn't mean anything. Here at en-wiki, there are some cultural expectations, and one of them is this: you can't yell and scream and name-call, and then forget about it and go have a beer together like you are maybe used to. Or rather, yes, you can: once, maybe twice maximum. But if you keep doing that, you will be blocked or banned here. So, here is my proposal for you, and it's a two-parter:
  • First, do you think you can apologize directly to Gleaanon, recognize that it was a mistake to act/talk that way, and say you are very sorry for it, and really mean it?
  • Second: can you say here, publicly, in this forum, that this will not happen again, neither with Gleeanon, nor with some other editor?

I am not an admin, but if you can make these promises, sincerely, convincingly, then I think this will go away, and you will not be blocked. But you know yourself best: if someone getting in your face a week or a month from now, maybe even calling *you* names, is going to make you explode, then *don't* make any promises now, because it will just make it worse for you later. So, this is a time to look inward and reflect, and think whether you can really do this or not; are you capable of it: to never scream and yell at someone again, even when they provoke you? This might be a real change to what you are used to. I hope you can. If you make the promise, don't disappoint me, please, because I'll be the first to vote for you to be blocked if you do. But I hope you can do it, and then we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia. Sto contando in lei. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I already apologized to Gleaanon, I can do it again if that makes any difference. Second, no, I will not do it again. third, I am a bit disappointed in u not recognizing that also Gleaanon should be asked to discuss te articles and not the nominator. forth, this is the first time I feel like I am part of a racial discrimination (joking, but not too much) the whole introduction about Italians is pretty much inappropriate. thank god, I really don't care for being Italian. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlejandroLeloirRey:, sorry, Alejandro, it's such a long thread, I must have missed that. Oh, well, was just trying to make you feel at home; I just picked up on something you said about yourself; sorry if my "hello" fell flat. I'll leave you be; thanks for your comments, and all the best. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, hi, don't missunderstand me, I appreciate u took some time to read all this and give me ur advice. as I said, I shouldn't have ever lost the grip and swear at Gleaanon. that said, I would appreciate if we recognize the facts that most of the incidents are caused by frustration and if a person is intentionally frustrating a conversation than he should be told to stop. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Alejandro, I appreciate your follow-up, and I understand. And you're probably right; the trick is, there are two different pieces to it, and you own your behavior (and they own theirs) and even if they're in your face, and nobody tells them to stop, you still have to remain calm anyway and not get frustrated and lash out, otherwise you're both wrong. It's difficult, and it's not natural almost, so it's kind of a learned reaction. You have to basically stay calm in the face of outrage, and not blow up, and just report it appropriately. If you can do that, then you retain the high ground with respect to the policies and behavioral guidelines, and you will end up in the clear. I really do wish you the best, and hope this works out for all concerned. Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment nothing to see here. I participate in many AfDs both regarding discussions on notability and regarding deletion sorting. I think that the OP needs to toughen up and the subject of the ANI needs to ease up. I want to remind you that we are all working for free. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps. That might be the best we can hope for, however this doesn’t address in anyway the main underlying issue that OP is causing grief in AfD’s even if most people don’t care about gay adult film actors.
  In fact OP has doubled-down and five(!) week’s after the last AfD has re-targeted J.D. Slater for deletion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Gleeanon409: me and u both want the porn section of wikipedia to look good but we have two different point of views. I believe that if we keep any porn bio people who will read them will just conclude that porn is a joke and no porn actor is really notable, u on the contrary want to have as many porn bio as possible. it is a matter of point of view. another thing, I am an academic and to me it is very important that the sources are very reliable. I use wikipedia for my researches sometime and fortunately in other area wikipedia is more reliable. If I was a sociologist I couldn't use wikipedia for a research about porn, because most of the sources are ridiculous. if u want to talk longer and exchange point of view about porn bio let's do it on my page so we can let this discussion carry on without interfering. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t have any particular view on Wikipedia’s coverage. Nor do I have aspirations to survey it at all.
  Another area where we sharply disagree is I feel it’s abusive to waste other editor’s energy discussing obviously notable subjects for deletion which you seem quite comfortable. I also, regardless of subject area, would use common sense to not, for instance, try to delete articles on the top production company in that field, nor those who have been honored with the top awards in their industry. You obviously feel a different route is appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I put this link everywhere, also on my page for you to see: https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname=%20your%20AFD%20stats , u can see with your eyes that the largest part of my nominations are very rationales, having being engaged into an housecleaning it is normal that sometime I nominated people who were actually notable, but if u took a second and looked at my stats u shall see I am not wasting anybody's time. I am writing on your page so we can let this discussion follow without our interference. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment my two sense, both AlejandroLeloirRey and Gleeanon409 are in the wrong. Gleeanon409 shouldn't have been repeatedly calling out AlejandroLeloirRey's BEFOREs. Since doing so in the way "inclusionists" do it is clearly an intimidation tactic. That's just intended to push the nominators buttons and doesn't serve any purpose other then needless finger pointing. If someone is actually doing a bunch of bad nominations, repeatedly attacking or calling them out in their AfDs isn't the way to deal with it. Also, Gleeanon409 mentioning this ANI and AlejandroLeloirRey's supposedly bad judgement in the J. D. Slater nomination. Which wasn't a good way to deal with this either.

That said, I gave AlejandroLeloirRey advice on the AfDs process a while back. Which included telling him to wait six months to renominate an article, because it helps avoid the accusations he is receiving here about having something against gay porn actors. Considering that he ignored my advice it's clear he is unable to listen to constructive feedback. I think his inability to is reflected in how he has responded to feedback here also. I don't think he has a specific thing against gay porn actors like some people are accusing him of, but his overall behavior about things is disruptive IMO. Especially the constant bludgeoning. Which isn't justified by his AfD success rate. As someone who has problems with bludgeoning myself, I've find it extremely helpful to just not revisit AfDs after the initial nomination. Which I think he would benefit from. There's zero point in revisiting them anyway. Outside of that, the appropriate action for this IMO would be a slap on the wrist for both of them. Since they are both in the wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I listened to u about re-nominating J. D. Slater but I also asked the admin who actually closed as no consensus the first nomination and he told me there was no need to wait. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply Hi AlejandroLeloirRey. What is technically allowed and what is advisable are often different. It's important to remember even admins can give bad advice (insert shocked face). It's my understanding (others can correct me if I'm wrong) that nominating an article again for AfD within six months is generally considered bad form (not always). This is especially true if the same rationale is used in the renomination and even more so when nominated by the same person with the same rationale. It could be interpreted by others as WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND or refusing to WP:LISTEN. It can also be seen as a variant of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, hoping a different audience will produce the result you desire when the other did not. Best wishes.   // Timothy :: talk  23:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reply Hi TimothyBlue, lol, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, god I love wikipedia, there is an article for any kind of misbehavior I assume lol. i am starting to feel it like a challenge to misbehave in a way nobody ever did before lol (joking)- ok, than I followed a bad avice because basically it was just what I wanted to be advised. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think both editors are acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing, but they are clearly arousing eaching other (sorry couldn't resist). They could take steps that would make the situation better. Going the extra mile to be polite. Remembering its important to listen. Not beating a point to death (sorry). I don't think either editor is getting any pleasure out of this situation (sorry again), and if both commit to trying to move in the right direction, each would have a more productive and enjoyable time talking about gay porn. Yes I'm jesting a bit, but I am serious.   // Timothy :: talk  23:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Final Reply: AlejandroLeloirRey, I was originally hoping to stop this thread from starting because I knew what was coming. I have made a genuine effort here and on your talk page to try and find a way to make your time here enjoyable and productive.

I will make one final effort, because I genuinely want you to stay, be productive, and enjoy being here.

There are some areas on Wikipedia that are quiet and editors can work reasonably undisturbed (I work on bibliographies often for this reason); AfD is the polar opposite. AfD is a place you must work with others constantly and find a way to work productively and collaboratively, in the face of often heated and contentious disagreement. This is true regardless of the AfD topic; I'm in a heated and contentious disagreement here over a 2yr old Princess. Whether this is right or wrong, it's the nature of this area of Wikipedia, and its not going to change. Expecting otherwise is like expecting to find a cocktail and Sunday brunch at a dive bar. (Now I'm thinking about cocktails and Sunday brunch... god I miss cocktails and Sunday brunch. I also miss dive bars).

In areas that require a great deal of interaction and consensus building, everyone must find a way to work with others if they wish to consistently and constructively participate; otherwise, it is counterproductive to achieving consensus. It is equally true that the others should attempt to integrate everyone, including individuals with whom they have frequent disagreements. If for whatever reason a person cannot find a way to work with others in any area where there is often contentious disagreement, it's best to find another place in Wikipedia to work; otherwise, it's just going to be mutually miserable all around. Perhaps in your particular case, it would be creating articles related to gay porn instead of AfDs related to gay porn. There is no point in working in an area of Wikipedia where you cannot enjoy working.

The choice here is simple, either change, continue on the same path and be unhappy or find a new place you can enjoy working. I hope you choose the latter but fear you will choose otherwise and eventually just decide to leave Wikipedia (which would be unfortunate). Others may have better advice, but this is the best I can offer.   // Timothy :: talk  01:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• An admin should consider closing this discussion. There is no consensus on a course of action and the discussion is all heat and no light and this is not likely to change.   // Timothy :: talk  01:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Everyone has a COI

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

---

I’m a longtime Wikipedian, a retired handyman in New Jersey. I’ve written hundreds of articles for 12+ years. I’ve never taken money for my contributions. I've uploaded 3000+ images and declared almost all of them to be public domain. I edit using my real name. I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. But editor Melcous has been using my past mistakes as an excuse to stalk everything I do here, claiming that I have a conflict of interest on such subjects as RepresentUs (an anti-corruption organization) or Michele McNally (a deceased NY Times photo editor) or undoing my work on Raynard Kington (an educator) or Molly Secours (a filmmaker) or Boryana Straubel (a deceased tech executive) or Xyla Foxlin (a YouTuber) or restoring notability tags on the nonprofit The Oasis Center for Women and Girls. I have no connection with any of these subjects. Melcous didn’t edit these articles until after I edited them. It’s a consistent pattern of stalking behavior. Please cause Melcous to stop this harassment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also a fairly long term wikipedian, and I'm happy for someone to look into my editing and let me know if I have crossed any lines. When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. I would also note that my greater concern, and encouragement to Tomwsulcer, has been to properly respond to COI concerns raised and disclose them. There have been two threads at WP:COIN (here and here) where concerns have been raised about his edits. As noted by other editors including Wizzito and SVTCobra, both times he has chosen to disappear from editing from a period of time, and reappear after the threads have gone stale and been archived, so the issues have not been resolved. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been stalking me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's stalking imho. I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking', 'it's all sourced' (articles can be sourced but still have tone/grammar issues, etc.), and stuff like that. wizzito | say hello! 05:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you think you need to be "humble" - but in actual fact you were right when you said "I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking'".

Tomwsulcer needs a block more than help for some imaginary offence. I'm astonished he stuck his head up in this way, but I have confidence in the correct result of this self-destructive posting. Begoon 13:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a very straight forward case of WP:HOUND. @Tomwsulcer: We generally shy away from using the term "stalking" now in reference to editors following each other around onwiki. @Melcous: Don't do what you are doing. If you want to start a new COIN thread, by all means. However, it is very inappropriate to just unilaterally tag all of an editors contributions with COI. WP:HOUNDING is not okay in any situation, and you should instead try to open a dialogue with the respective editors. If that doesn't work, you can escalate to a noticeboard, but don't follow the editor around the project. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow this advice and will bow out from here if possible, but it would be good to at least be honest in what we are talking about. I have not "unilaterally tagged all of an editor's contributions with COI". There were exactly two articles here that I tagged for COI, one out of a discussion at WP:COIN after the editor had inserted promotional wording about the subject into multiple unrelated articles, and the other because it was the first article created after he returned to editing after failing to deal with the WP:COIN thread and I noted this on the talk page. I'm reluctant to start a new COIN thread when it seems that all an editor needs to do is "wait it out" and the issue gets ignored. Melcous (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous: If you started another COIN thread, and Tom just waited it out, then that would be WP:GAMING which you could report here.
Semantics of what you tagged vs. copy-edited aside, these three diffs were all made within minutes of each other. If I was Tom, I'd be rightfully upset about that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A straightforward case of WP:HOUND? Forgive me if I laugh. How much research did you do? Begoon 12:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, more than you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No one in this thread has said what happened wasn't a case of WP:FOLLOWING. The only disagreement was how justified Melcous was in doing so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, MJL, WP:HOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING (same thing) describes hounding as being "...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." So no, you are wrong - if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll just add that "Nobody denied the accusation I made" is never a valid justification for an accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Boing! on Tour: Okay, in reverse order: (1) Melcous literally admitted to following Tom around: When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. That's a straightforward definition of a pattern of behavoir which can be seen as hounding depending on the circumstance. However, instead of being like "Melcous literally admitted to following." (which would've required I get a diff or provide the exact quote for) I said "No one here has contested following has happened." because it would be absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say otherwise when Melcous literally admitted to following.
(2) It is amazing to me that I can say how the only disagreement here is whether Melcous was justified in following Tom around, and for you to tell me I'm wrong because if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Like, yeah.. I know. While I understand that you feel otherwise, I don't think Melcous was justified in this months-long quest to get Tom to answer for things he did eleven years ago - which is what the original COIN thread was about and the thing Melcous thought was important enough to bring up again in the second COIN thread (ignore my choice of diff; COIN was oversighted). Yeah, sorry, but no. We're almost five months out from the original COIN thread which was based off things which happened 8-11 years ago, and we're a month out since the second COIN thread. That Melcous used those events as the excuse to follow Tom around as recently as two days ago, is not only buck wild, it's borderline obsessive.
(3) Are you really just going to say hounding and following are the same thing? One is negative, and the other is neutral. The policy goes into detail about both. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm obviously not saying that hounding and following (as used in English) are the same thing, I am saying that in Wikispeak WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOLLOWING are links to the same paragraph, which is Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. In this reply you are still using "following" (English) as justification for your accusation of WP:HOUNDING (Wikispeak). And yes, the policy does go into detail as to what is acceptable following and what is not, but that is an explanation of what is and what is not considered hounding. Did you also notice that Melcous got no help in those WP:COIN threads? Melcous did the right thing, but nobody cared, and Tomwsulcer was just allowed to sit it out and carry on his COI editing without hindrance. Is it any wonder Melcous felt alone and saw WP:COIN as a waste of time? That's my big gripe here, that Melcous followed the proper procedures, got absolutely nowhere with them, and then when she tried to address the problems she saw directly (because she was getting no help), she was accused of stalking (and then of WP:HOUNDING and WP:GRUDGE here at ANI where people are supposed to examine issues in a fair and balanced manner). The initial response here was from people piling in without properly examining the whole situtation, the background, and the wider picture. Sadly, that's what ANI is like these days - there are too many here who are ready to jump on any accusation they see without putting in the effort to investigate it properly. And that makes me angry. Thankfully, someone did care enough to investigate properly, and found that the concerns that led Melcous to follow and review Tomwsulcer's edits are well founded. And yes, Melcous was still following and correcting Tomwsulcer's COI violations days ago. That's because they were still happening days ago. It has been going on for years. Frankly, I'm disappointed by your responses and your lack of self-reflection here, MJL, instead just doubling down on your flawed accusations. But I've said enough, and I know I would get nowhere trying to challenge the poisonous atmosphere at ANI. Thank you, at least, for listening. Boing! on Tour (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE. Melcous needs to agree to stop following Tomwsulcer around. ––FormalDude talk 05:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely? In that case I'm sure you can back up that assertion with diffs? Begoon 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Tomwsulcer provided seven in their initial comment. ––FormalDude talk 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven what? There's some external links in that post but I have no idea how that's supposed to be an answer to my question. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven diffs. Diffs of Melcous making what appear to be rather superfluous revisions of Tomwsulcer's contributions. One alone might not mean much, but seven separate occasions is a pattern of harassment. ––FormalDude talk 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  But did you bother to check them to see if they really were superfluous, look beyond those specific diffs to the wider recent editing of those articles, or check to see if Tomwsulcer does actually have any undeclared connections with any of the subjects before jumping on the accusing bandwagon? No, you didn't, did you? Without making any actual effort to properly check, your "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" comment is just a lazy throwaway accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I did check, thank you very much.

  Represent Us - Tagging a COI despite zero proof/evidence from a COIN thread.

  Xyla Foxlin Removing details from references for no reason.

  Amongst the rest, it is at the very least borderline hounding. ––FormalDude talk 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  So in your checking, you didn't find the clear COI violation at Molly Secours which Tomwsulcer has since admitted, and the indirect connection with The Oasis Center for Women and Girls? You didn't notice the excessive quoting and the puffery that Melcous was removing? No, your checking was not remotely sufficient for a "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" conclusion. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and the removal at Xyla Foxlin was not for no reason - Melcous clearly gave a reason in the edit summary. You might not agree with it, but that's a content disagreement and not evidence of WP:GRUDGE. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm striking my comment in light of the misconduct by Tomwsulcer below. ––FormalDude talk 09:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tomwsulcer: Do you have any undeclared personal connection to Molly Secours? (I note you said, above, "I have no connection with any of these subjects", but I want to ask you specifically about this one just in case you had forgotten anything). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I hired her to narrate my audiobook. I paid her. She didn't pay me for a Wikipedia article; I did it on my own on a volunteer basis. So there's no financial connection; there's no conflict of interest. But pretty much everything I write about, and every person I put into Wikipedia, I have some kind of connection with, if you'd like to get philosophical about it. I'm a New Jerseyan; so I'm predisposed to write about New Jersey subjects. I'm an American; I tend to write about Americans and American-type issues. I think everybody here is like me in that way -- we write about what we know. I've never accepted money for anything I do in Wikipedia. My policy is to try to get everybody who qualifies for a wiki-article into Wikipedia. If I met you Boing! on Tour, at a coffee shop, and within a few minutes, if we got to talking, I'd be wondering how I could get you into Wikipedia; if you'd qualify, you'd be there. It's just how I am.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about being philosophical (which is the line you took last time, if I remember correctly), it's about direct personal connections with the subjects you write about. And COI is not just about financial connections, or about being paid. It's about any connection that might lean an author to writing favourably or unfavourably about a subject, rather than from a neutral point of view. You *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and when you said "I have no connection with any of these subjects" that was not the truth. I see also that Molly Secours worked at The Oasis Center for Women and Girls, so can you see how there might appear to be an undisclosed connection there too? How your direct personal connection with Molly Secours might lean you towards writing favourably about that organisation? You want to try to get everybody you know who you think might warrant it an entry into Wikipedia, and that's just the way you are? That is *not* the way Wikipedia is - or, at least, doing it without declaring your connections is not the way Wikipedia is. When you have connections with people you write about (like the very blatant connection with Molly Secours), you *must* declare it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I have connections with pretty much everybody. And so do you, and so does everybody. We're all connected. For example, take Boryana Straubel. I read about her death in the NY Times. I felt sorry that she died in a bicycle accident. So I put her in Wikipedia. Are you saying that I should *declare* my 'connection' with this subject? It's a good article. Do you think I need to *declare* my 'relationship' with her, that I felt sorry that she died? If we make that a requirement, then I think everybody here in Wikipedia will spend half of their time declaring their associations, and they won't have any time left to build this great encyclopedia. Straubel belongs in Wikipedia. Or take Molly Secours; everything I wrote is referenced; she belongs here too. Is the article fair? Take a look. I simply said what the sources were saying. I agree about close family members; even though I write using my real name, I should have been more forthcoming that Frederick D. Sulcer was my late father. So I question the assumption that *any* connection that any of us has to anything here in Wikipedia invariably brings about bias or unfair coverage, and that simply is not the case. Why? Because of the requirements for notability and sourcing and the biography guidelines. We can't just say *anything* about anybody we want to. There are rules. I follow the rules. That's why very few, if any, of my hundreds and hundreds of articles I've written here ever been deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on Tom, don't be so disingenuous. No, if you had no personal connection with Boryana Straubel then of course you don't have to declare any interest. But you *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly told us here in this very discussion that you did not. And it has got *nothing to do* with the quality of what you write or whether it is sourced - WP:COI does not have an "unless you write good stuff that's well referenced" clause. The Molly Secours article as you left it was packed with excessive quotes, laced with puffery, and read to me as though it was written to show her in as favourable a light as possible. Melcous improved it considerably with some warranted pruning, and ended up being accused of stalking as a result. You can disagree with WP:COI policy as it is written, but unless you can get it changed then you *must* follow it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to add... WP:COI is not about "Man, I'm at one with the universe, and I have a connection with everything..." waffle. No, it is quite specific, and you should read it. Its very first sentence says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Tom, you have a clear employer/client financial relationship with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly denied it. I can envisage someone suggesting sanctions against you (maybe some sort of BLP restriction) unless you can show you understand and accept that, and that you will adhere carefully to WP:COI policy in the future. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better? Begoon 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Which previous comment?

Is there a reason you can't just answer my question? I didn't think it was hard.

I'm confused now. Begoon 14:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This almost doesn't need to be said since you already pledged to better adhere to WP:COI for the future, but having any financial relationship with someone (past or present) generally means you have a COI with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my main issue with Molly Secours is why the opening sentence of "...is a Nashville-based filmmaker, author, and activist" requires six citations after it. Anyway, I haven't investigated the problems with Tomwsulcer, but I just want to mention to Melcous that edits like this that put {{cn}} tags into an article but are disguised by the edit summary "copyedit" are unhelpful. In this instance, I would recommend doing the tagging in a separate edit with a summary like "cannot find a source for this" or "the given source does not state the claim specifically, need another one" or something like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks like genuinely good copy editing to me - and did you see the peacock drivel it removed? It might indeed be better to do the {{cn}} changes separately with a separate edit summary, but I think suggesting it was "disguised" is a poor choice of words as it implies deliberate obfuscation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I did - it was just a suggestion. As for Tomwsulcer, I would suggest they have ownership issues and need to stop giving slippery and evasive answers to questions, or hoping difficult questions will just disappear as it will probably end up with a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment here because I've already had one unpleasant encounter with Tomwsulcer but I think my experience may help illustrate the issues. On Raynard S. Kington, I removed a statement that was not supported by the source given. Tomwsulcer re-added it with additional sources but none that supported the specific claim. I started a discussion on the talk page but Tomwsulcer did not participate. Instead, he posted on the talk page of gay men, asking "Do gay men endure discrimination in Wikipedia?" which suggested that I, a gay woman, was removing his edits because I am homophobic. I asked an experienced user for advice and they posted a message to Tomwsulcer's talk page. It was removed unanswered. I assume that Tomwsulcer is trying, in his own way, to improve Wikipedia, but it is frustrating to work with someone who will not communicate and/or is passive aggressively attacking you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's quite troubling. Tomwsulcer, what was your intention with that edit on an unrelated talk page? Were you canvassing for help or genuinely accusing Polycarpa of being homophobic for removing an unsupported statement? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure @Tomwsulcer will be along to shed light on that shortly, but in case they missed it I've taken the liberty of adding a courtesy 'ping'. I do hope it's received - but I have faith because we're all connected to everyone, after all... Begoon 10:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

He has stated that he is no longer editing, so I doubt he will be here. This is not the first time he has cast aspersions on an editor for trying to uphold WP's notability guidelines. This didn't seem to get picked up before. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's tried to duck repercussions by disappearing either, only to reappear when he thinks the heat might have died down. Just my opinion, but I really think it would be a very good idea, by now, to make that tactic less easy. Begoon 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing a topic ban (probably on BLPs) for Tomwsulcer, but didn't know enough about the situation to suggest which sanction, if any, was appropriate. Do you think we should proceed with suggesting such a thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd propose a site ban, personally, because I don't think the bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". But I'll leave it to others because I'm loathe to commit the sort of time that would obviously be necessary, given the bizarre, shallow, knee-jerk 'defences' above, and also I'm no longer a "regular" so tend to consider such a proposal a bit outside my current remit. Wikipedia is very bad at removing bad actors like this. That's one of the reasons I don't participate much any more. Begoon 12:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Begoon speaks for me on this matter. SN54129 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking or hounding cannot be a defense against misconduct if Wikipedia is to function, and dealing with another editors' mistakes and issues cannot be considered stalking. There's abundant evidence above and in his contributions Tomwsulcer "doesn't get" COI policies, willfully or deliberately, and if this thread is to be closed it should be with restrictions against him, not Melcous. Simply because this thread is just a repetition of existing patterns and Tom's editing has been problematic for years (his image contributions are promotional at best, copyright violations at worst), I would recommend a site ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Site ban

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

---

Okay, let's formally propose that Tomwsulcer is banned from Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after six months, and if unsuccessful, every subsequent year thereafter. Comments, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question I'm a bit confused here. I've had my run ins with Tomwsculcer and I'm sure we are both certain the other editor was a civil POV pusher. But Tom has a clean block log and while they were violating COI I can probably see how one might think, absent reading the policy, that they didn't have a COI etc. Is a site block really the least intrusive way we can protect Wikipedia in this case? Would it be better to issue a clear warning with a stated escalation plan? Springee (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Support. I was envisioning a restriction on BLP edits, perhaps with new articles submitted via AFC and a clear commitment to adhere to WP:COI policy (rather than just "I'll try"). But no, Tom is editing in good faith despite his chronic policy failures (and, yes, his original dishonesty in this discussion), and I think a site ban would be excessive at this point. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've changed my mind after seeing the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer. Tom was socking as recently as January 2022 to hide his continued COI editing. Given that the previous COIN discussion had been in November 2021, I can't possibly accept this was a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment. No, I think I'm a soft touch at times, but this has eliminated any possibility in my mind that Tom was acting in good faith here. It was an obviously deliberate attempt to evade the COI policy that he had no excuse for not understanding at that time. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Ban is not warranted in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, not only for the issues pointed out above (including the "original dishonesty") and the disappearing to avoid sanctions tactic, but also because of the worrying discussion with Begoon above: Begoon asks then "Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better?", to which they only can answer "Please see my previous comment" (which, as Begoon points out, doesn't seem to be an answer), and then "Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future." which again doesn't answer the question, leaving me with the impression that they have used their editing to make friends and family look better here, but that they are not willing to admit it or to indicate where they did this. No thanks, we don't need people here who use these tactics and don't even want to make amends when it is (again and again) pointed out that such editing is not acceptable, but instead attack the ones trying to uphold our policies. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am puzzled about this because I feel like the opening statement does address the question: I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This was last month. This, admittedly is a little older, but, quite honestly, wtf? Begoon 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I get it, I'm just saying "didn't address the question" doesn't seem to be the problem. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, given my comments above. I don't believe that "Tom is editing in good faith", Boing, I'm sorry but I just don't. Good faith would be demonstrated by owning the issues, some sadly absent honesty, and showing some real understanding of why they were wrong, with a meaningful, credible commitment to avoid such issues going forwards. None of that is in evidence. An indefinite block, rather than site ban, might serve to enforce that, but limited "Tbans" really don't seem sufficient here. I'd also ask anyone closing this thread to note a couple of the comments above this "formal proposal" which seem to support it (and, of course, those which don't). Begoon 11:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, fair points there. I was thinking good faith in that I think he genuinely wants to write nice stuff about people, whether has has a COI or not. But as for good faith regarding Wikipedia standards, no, he has clearly been deliberately trying to circumvent them. I recall a similar problem with his approach to copyright at Commons, where he essentially argued that we should ignore copyright law because everybody else was doing so. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quite. I'm sure Tom's a lovely chap, the type who, if I lent him my lawnmower, would scrupulously clean and oil it before handing it back. We're not discussing that here though - we're considering whether he's a good fit for, or a continual detriment to wikipedia, and whether his bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". I don't think it is, but if he turned up and said something that genuinely addressed those concerns in a credible and convincing way I'd rescind my support for a ban in a heartbeat. Begoon 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Tom has edited about family members and friends and this has been mentioned in a previous COIN report. These were around ten years ago and I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood COI policy wrt the more recent articles where he had a COI. I believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies. I do have additional concerns about his conduct in defending these articles. I am recusing myself from an actual support or oppose !vote as it occurred to me that I myself had written an article on a family member some time ago... I have reported myself to COIN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also "believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies" - and commits properly to adhere to them in future. I just don't see any evidence of that time being taken, genuine understanding or any commitment. Begoon 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/reply: As the initial subject of this report, I will also recuse myself from supporting or opposing. But I would note Catfish Jim and the soapdish that the editing of articles about his family members is not just "about ten years ago", but has continued on as recently as the last few months. See 1 and 2 for some fairly blatant examples. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, looking at those examples (along with the others I've seen), I think the main problem is that Tomwsulcer's writing has been relentlessly hagiographic in style. It might not be a particularly bad human fault to want to pour gushing praise on others, but obviously completely inappropriate here. Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is true... it does significantly erode the case for giving him the benefit of doubt. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be more a case of a user whose writing style isn't a good fit for Wikipedia, not someone who was intentionally violating COIN to promote a third party. Per their talk page, the user has already quit, and I don't see any benefit to a ban here. We've managed to drive them off from the Wiki already, no need to twist the knife. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- mind if I weigh in on this? I'm committed to exiting Wikipedia but my heart has gone out to all of you fine people, that I feel horrible that I've been wasting everybody's time on me and my stupid problems, so I'd like to briefly explain myself. My mistake has been, clearly, that I have not heeded the COI guidelines as rigorously as I should have. I admit it. My flawed thinking has gone along like this: that what's really important in Wikipedia are the three pillars: notability, reliable sources, verifiability. This is what I grew up on, and I really thought, honestly, that if contributions meet these three tests, they're okay. I should have been more forthcoming in my contributions. See, I was writing under my real name, I just didn't think about it after a while, and when I got called on it in the COI noticeboard, I didn't treat it seriously because I thought it was just users wanting to fingerwag me, and I wanted to keep contributing. But it's one of my many problems: I have ADHD (TWO shrinks in my town diagnosed me) so my mind is all over the place, I'm interested in everything, and one way I've learned to moderate my ADHD is by writing (I can cover it up that way -- I've edited my own writing here with several passes, how it's done...). So I'm actually a semi-competent writer with a few self-published books to my name. PLUS maybe I picked this up from my father, an advertising man, but I have this marketing sensibility of wanting to promote everything and everyone I see. I agree -- that's not the best writing sensibility for Wikipedia. I'm also tremendously interested in all sorts of ideas so I've contributed heavily to articles like History of citizenship because I listen to these Teaching Company courses (free from the local library) and want to write about this stuff! I also want to get everybody into Wikipedia if I can (again, not the best mindset, I agree) cause if you're talking to me at a coffee shop, or I read about you in a newspaper, within 5 minutes I can tell if you're wiki-bio ready, and I can write a wikibio in an hour. I can really whip them out. Most stuff, frankly, about people is positive, and I just write what the references say, and it usually comes out sounding positive or sometimes maybe like puffery. Again, one more of my problems. I was frustrated when I was being hounded after the COI revelations so I did write the John Mack Carter article -- again, no pay involved, I used to live near his family in Bronxville years back. So, long story short, my means are flawed, but my goals (I think) were good. I do love this project, I love information, I think Wikipedia is a great project and I urge you all to keep making it great! And the best way for me, at this point, is to bow out. So, again, apologies, please ban me for life (yes my wife would like that!) cause the Internet is a wide new world and there are plenty of other places for me to write. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response, Tom. It's good that you seem to (belatedly) accept that wikipedia is not your blog. There are, indeed, better venues for that. It's a bit of a shame though, in my opinion, that you still seem to regard having that pointed out to you as "hounding". I hope that, if you ever do consider a return here, your understanding has evolved beyond that perplexing and inaccurate mindset. I also, sincerely, hope that you continue to get satisfaction and happiness from your writing on other platforms. Begoon 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Tomwsulcer: Much respect for that, Tom. I was always convinced you had the best motives here, and that it was your procedural approach that was problematic. In the light of what you say, I am further convinced that we do not need to apply any sanctions here. If you should wish to resume editing in the future, I would be open to offering what guidance I can. (I might not be active here when you do, as I continue to wind down my Wikipedia activity, but I intend to always keep my Wikipedia email contact active and I would invite you to use it). Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (Withdrawn after seeing the lastest SPI, and amending my recommendation above. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC))

  I said above that I'd rescind my support for a ban if I saw a response that convinces me Tom truly understands and will not continue to be a problem. I still, honestly, haven't quite seen that yet, but he says he will not continue to edit, and I'm honour-bound to accept that at face value, so I guess sanctions are no longer urgent right now. I'd probably prefer a definitive result from the thread, because "I retire for a while, so you don't need to sanction me" is getting pretty damn old, tired and sadly predictable as a response, but meh... Begoon 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Agree here that good faith has been exhausted in this scenario. Tom's entire editing history is littered with COI editing and utter refusal to understand copyright. Given the issues with the line between outing and determining COI topic bans simply aren't sufficient. We can't figure out every person Tom has a connection to, but we certainly can see from his track record it's not going to be encyclopedic. Frankly, Tom's post above makes me even more strident in my belief that we need a ban here. As long as people are willing to say "oh well they're quitting, there's no need for sanctions", there is no limit to how often editors will claim "ANI flu" to avoid discussions of their bad behavior, or trot out a medical diagnosis as explanation for why we shouldn't deal with their behavior. And frankly good faith should be exhausted as soon as those canards come out. We have plenty of editors with ADHD or autism who can edit constructively without problems. If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree with any of that, either.

  I was trying to be "nice" above, but at some point we do need to consider whether that "niceness" is just being exploited or manipulated.

  And yes - "If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it?" Begoon 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Please don't give the user a free pass merely because they say they're quitting! It's not that I doubt their sincerity, but surely we all know that editing Wikipedia is addictive (duh), and that most people who sincerely say they quit are likely to come back when the withdrawal bites. Bishonen | tålk 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC). PS: And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟 Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC).

  "And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟"

  Amen. Boing put it best, above. Begoon 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support per my previous remarks. I found TWS's statement above moving and self-analytical, but unfortunately still ignoring the consequences of their actions rather than the causes of them. SN54129 13:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  Changing to strong support per the SPI; while that seems to have attracted lukewarm attention, their blatant admission of socking is clear, despite the details our august colleagues are discussing. SN54129 21:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I have not seen good behavior from Tom, and I doubt the efficiency of not banning him simply because he quit; in the first COI thread, he simply left for a few months and then came back instead of addressing his mistakes; and I feel as if he may do a similar thing if he is not banned here and now. Also, dropping a link to this discussion regarding possible WP:SOCK by Tom: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer. wizzito | say hello! 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - First of all, let's get out of the way that I agree that someone quitting shouldn't let them off the hook. The issue is, to jump straight to a site ban I expect to see pervasive, egregious problems for which no lesser intervention could suffice, and I don't think the case for that position has been sufficiently made. Few things try people's patience like poorly managed COIs, indeed, but looking through a few people's opinions here, you'd think tendentious and COI editing is all that Tom does... but a perusal through a few of his most edited articles doesn't seem to support that picture. That doesn't mean there aren't big problems here, so don't take this oppose as opposing any action at all -- it's just a response to the only proposal on the table, which is the most severe possible action. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to this one where Tomwsulcer adds a name to a long list of people that went to the same school as Dana Delany. Peter Currie (businessman) was created by Tomwsulcer. Julian Hatton was created by Tomwsulcer. Nate Lee was created by Tomwsulcer. Sara Nelson (editor) was created by Tomwsulcer. Priscilla Martel was created by Tomwsulcer. Gar Waterman was created by Tomwsulcer. The dispute that I mentioned above was in regard to Tomwsulcer's edits to Raynard S. Kington, who is now the haed of that school, Phillips Academy. It makes me wonder if perhaps Tomwsulcer is more interested in Phillips Academy than he is in Dana Delany. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think they are all former classmates of his? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: They are. (Redacted) wizzito | say hello! 15:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Wizzito: I see your evidence was redacted... presumably because of doxing concerns... Tom states that they were on his linked in page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to - This is sort of my point. Why did you then stop? And why did you not look at the others? The question isn't "has Tom made bad edits" because clearly he has -- a lot of them. The question is whether a site ban is necessary, and evidence of bad edits isn't justification for a site ban. We site ban people when there's no realistic way they can contribute productively. I'm saying there is evidence Tom can contribute productively, as evidenced by the other contributions. But what I'm saying doesn't really matter, I suppose, since Tom is quitting and seems to be... well maybe not making things worse, but certainly not making things better with what he's been writing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: You seemed to be saying that Tomwsulcer wasn't just editing pages where he had some personal interest that he wanted to advance. That edit showed me what his personal connection was. Since you asked, I went a little further. Tomwsulcer added a quote from Dana Delany, made in an interview with someone named Jonathan Meath. Sure enough, Jonathan Meath has a page created by Tomwsulcer and Meath attended Phillips Academy. My opinion is that quotes don't belong in biographies unless they are historically significant. I definitely don't think quotes should be used just to namedrop one of your friends. Is Tomwsulcer a good editor outside of the conficts of interest? Read his concluding statement at Talk:Dana Delany/GA1. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support due to COI editing, misrepresenting said COI editing (re the Molly Secours article), and socking. GAB^gab 23:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support There are just too many things wrong here. User:Begoon said it best, but with the (admitted) socking and the inability to understand the problems, I end up here. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment / Post mortem I’ve been doing a little soul-searching and just wanted to understand what happened. I see myself as a good guy, ethical, a worthy contributor, doing an excellent job here with many tough subjects such as History of citizenship, Equal opportunity, Citizenship in the United States, Wall Street, United States Congress and such. And I want to do the right thing. This is a big deal for me, in my life, wanting to do the right thing, so I stepped back a bit, reread your comments above, and wanted to add one more comment since I think there’s much heat here and little light. What’s clear to me is that everybody else here is doing what they think is right. If we think about the idea of assuming good faith, then, what’s the problem?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand how most others here see me. That I was masqueraded as a ‘real’ contributor so that I could get my friends in here, possibly editing for money (I don’t do that). When I was ‘caught’ after 10+ years with a notice on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard, I refused to address the issues, and 'hid’ for a few months, hoping the hubhub would die down, that users would forget, and go back to my sleazy ways of COI writing. When I got hounded by well-meaning users, who (in good faith) thought I was COI editing, I evaded, didn’t address issues, didn’t come clean about all my nefarious history of COI editing. Then, when I complained about the hounding, and the socking got discovered, well proof positive – this guy’s no good, doesn’t belong here. I can see clearly how most of you think of me and my behavior here. Got it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, I realize that most of you won’t trust anything I write here, perhaps you’re suspecting that I’m writing this as a backhanded way to get back into Wikipedia (not the case, trust me – I’m quitting) but I’d still like to state my take on all of this. I’m an old hand here. Been here 13+ years. When I first started out, sure enough I got into wiki-battling, jousting over what went in, and frankly, and I think this is true for most of us here, initially, is that we enjoy the wikibattling. Admit it; it’s kind of fun. We get to play like wiki-lawyers. I was pretty good at the game. So are you guys: hey, don’t believe me, then reread this thread! What happened to me, during my tenure here, is that I learned, slowly, that I really didn’t like how I felt afterwards. So as time passed, I really came to try to avoid it, and to focus on creating good content. So, backtrack to last November, when I got ‘caught’ for COI editing, I figured it was just more wiki-battlers wanting to joust, and I didn’t want any more of that. I had Covid twice in the past two years, the first time quite seriously, and I don’t want to waste my time any more on this stuff. When I tried writing again, I was hounded left and right, with every thing I did being flagged as a COI violation, and the only way I thought I could avoid the wiki-battling was to try to write using another handle. And that from my point of view, having to reveal all of my associations would be more wiki-battling, more waste of time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I know; nobody reading this will trust me, but I’m telling you truthfully, how I’ve been thinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So, again, returning to my earlier question, what’s the problem? I think I’m good and right. Others think they’re right. Yet we have this conflict. What gives?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So I did a little thought experiment. Suppose I have a friend who’s a hacker, who has a way to get into Wikimedia’s databases, and can ‘reveal’ who you people are. Doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that most of you, writing under aliases, are fingerwagging me, who writes using his real name? But suppose I could lift the veil on you people, find out who you really are, then google your real names and your past editing history, and what do you think we’d find? I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings. We’d find that some of you edit for money. But then we’d look a little deeper at the particular edits you did, you horrendous COI editors you, and I bet we’d find that almost all of them were imminently reasonable, maybe sometimes with a little puffery, but verifiable with good reliable references, that if I went over all of your collective supposed COI contributions, I wouldn’t delete anything because they were all good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Think about it this way. I’ve been ‘exposed’ as a COI editor for months now, with numerous smart and sharp contributors going over everything I’ve ever edited here, but none of the articles I’ve written have been deleted. Why not? Because every wiki-bio article I’ve written deserves to belong here. They all meet the tests of notability. I can’t put my friends in here if my friends aren’t notable. But they’re notable. Many times I’ve made friends with people online after putting them in Wikipedia, usually after I’ve tried to beg them for a photo. (But navigating Wikimedia Commons is as some of you know a Kafka-esque pursuit).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So what I’m thinking at this point is that we ought to take a more hard-headed look at the COI guideline. Suppose there’s a public relations person who wants to write about their company, here in Wikipedia. Suppose there’s one of you people who want to write about your friends or your church or whatever. Suppose, further, you followed the rules – you were neutral, you referenced, your edits were verifiable. Would your edits be so bad? They’re checkable. You couldn’t just write anything. You had to use secondary sources not primary ones. You couldn’t engage in original research. See. from my viewpoint, these are constructive additions to this magnificent encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Consider, further, that it is really tough for us contributors here to try to attribute motives of contributors, and then to try to judge whether those motives are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. As I said, most of us here use alias handles so nobody knows who anybody else is. So we can’t even begin to try to track down the motives of anonymous contributors. Consider that I’ve been here 13+ years, using my real name, and it took that long to supposedly catch me and my supposed infractions. Even back in 2011, I declared my association to my late father, but it took more than a decade to have my COI discovered. The way Wikipedia is set up is not conducive to hunting down COI editors. It’s too tough. So it’s kind of like we’re operating on the honor system, as if we’re assuming that others (editing anonymously) will declare their supposed connections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

What the current COI guideline can do, however, is turn us all against each other, to fingerwag, to encourage wiki-battling. In my case, the COI guideline has been abused to turn good contributors like Melcous into hounders. Melcous isn’t at fault here; it’s the COI guideline that is at fault.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

So, what to do? My recommendation is keep the COI guideline but phrase it more like an encouragement, a request, but use it with greater discretion, and realize that the other guidelines like notability and reliable sources and verifiability and secondary sources and no original research, etc, take precedence. That’s how I see what’s happened here, is that the enforce-the-COI thing got out of hand, that it turned good contributors like Melcous against good contributors such as myself, and in the wiki-battling, painted me as some form of quasi wiki-criminal, even though for years I’ve been a top creator of good content. That’s what I’m saying: rethink the COI guideline. Keep the COI editing flags since they can help readers judge whether the article is fair or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s my two cents. Trust me, I’m gone. Bye folks. With my reputation in tatters here, I'm not the one to go crusading for such a change. Remember to please ban me. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your two cents? Bishonen | tålk 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC).

@Tomwsulcer: All you had to do was simply declare that you had connections with the people you wrote about. That's all. The purpose is simply to get others to check what you write, and adjust it for any excessive praise (for example). It's not hounding, it's cooperative editing. And that's all Meclous was doing. No, your articles have not been deleted. But they have been edited for content, with excessive puffery removed. And that is what COI policy is there for. You accept it, or you leave - and it's a shame you chose to refuse to accept it and leave. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: I would have liked to see you accept responsibility for your actions, help clean up some of the things you have written, and carry on editing with a new understanding of what other users expect from you. What I see is you saying that you are a great person and a great editor and if you broke the rules then the rules must be wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings - Yikes. This is perhaps the most cynical and/or pessimistic estimate of COI in the active Wikipedia community that I've come across. I can only gauge my estimate by my interactions with people here and Wikipedians whose real identities I know, but my take (and hope) is that it's much lower. But you do make a good point about use of real names. It does, I'm sure, feel quite unfair and perhaps even creepy to have a bunch of pseudonymous people on the internet pointing fingers at your family connections while keeping their own connections secret. It presents an asymmetric field that removes the possibility of exploring tu quoques. Sadly, that people do sometimes use Wikipedia to write about their families at length, and fail to hide it, makes it harder for those of us who want to discourage this sort of personal digging. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Such cynicism may perhaps be prompted by encountering Guide to Literary Agents (AfD discussion), a directory for authors to contact publishers edited by Chuck Sambuchino, with the Wikipedia article written by Csambuchino (talk · contribs). There's a parallel to Neguev (talk · contribs) writing about Reedsy (AfD discussion). I touched on the account names thing further down in this discussion. I've gone through some of Tomwsulcer's AFD contributions, and xe does seem to grasp the basic ideas, and would actually find a widespread agreement on some of the things that xe says. Where we differ, I suspect, is that it is my experience that the people with conflicts of interest tend in the main to be single purpose accounts or to edit in little walled gardens, or only edit the "bands, biographies, and businesses" subset of Wikipedia. I'm unconvinced that that such disagreement is something to ban for. I think that people are, however, reacting to the failure to say something simple like "I'm just a satisfied customer. They didn't pay me. If anything, I paid them!". Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support It would bring him much virtual peace. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. If anyone is still in doubt, check out this (and thanks to the individual who alerted me to it). It's a blatant piece of promotional puffery, with a lot of it (including the lead) sounding like it was written by the company's marketing department. Oh, and yes, you can guess who wrote it. I think Tomwsulcer's work needs some serious review and rewriting - I wonder how much more of this promotional garbage there is out there? (I'll start a little pruning on this one myself ...on further examination, I think it's beyond salvage in its current state and I've gone for AFD). Boing! on Tour (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, at Special:Undelete/Reedsy, at the second (correction: third) creation of the article in 2017, there is an edit summary from Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) claiming no association with Reedsy. Off-wiki evidence leads me to suspect that "I am merely a satisfied customer." would have been better. Moreover, I personally do not fault writing with a non-pseudonymous account when the subject is close to onesself. Although for many years I have offered the advice at User:Uncle G/On sources and content and User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you that one has to be very careful indeed about it and use only independent sources, which press releases and puffery most definitely are not. I think that failure to distinguish which secondary sources are good secondary sources is one cause of the problem here. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • There is circumstantial evidence that Tomwsulcer had collaboration from the company to write that article, at the time a whole load of its blatantly promotional content was added. I can't be confident that it's any more than Tom asking them to upload photos for him to use, and Tom's "gushing praise" style could account for the promotional content. But in combination with a professional connection with the company (though which Tom received professional services), this all makes it clear that a COI should have been declared so it could be reviewed by other editors under COI policy. There's no way all that puffery would have been acceptable by any review process (eg AFC) had such a review happened. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh, and yes, if Tom denied any connection with Reedsy at Special:Undelete/Reedsy (which I can't access), then the off-wiki evidence suggests that was not accurate. But we've already seen in the above discussion how ready he is to deny connections that he really does have. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The edit summary in full is "re-float; company is clearly notable; I'm not associated with Reedsy; added categories; copyedit; rm fluff; kept good refs". This was on 2017-11-19, 3 days after Winged Blades of Godric moved Draft:Reedsy out of the main article namespace, Neguev (talk · contribs) having come back on 2017-11-14 to create Reedsy a second time.

        Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

        • Ha, and have you seen who User:Neguev is? He's Emmanuel Nataf, "founder at reedsy.com and street photographer" (from the link on his user page, so I'm not outing him). Boing! on Tour (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Yes, I had. See a parallel a few bullet points above. Uncle G (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

EEng's talk page size

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

---

"I can see your talk page from here"

I realise that by starting this thread:

• ... I am causing drama
• ... I am inviting jokes about the talk page being visible from space
• ... a number of editors will wonder if I have more important things to do, such as writing an encyclopedia

Nevertheless, User talk:EEng is so big (almost 1 million characters) and archived so infrequently, that it has become unusable. It hangs on my desktop browser and crashes on my iPhone, giving repeated "This page reloaded because a problem occurred" errors. I do have a genuine reason to use his talk, such as asking questions about various areas of the MOS, as I consider him to be something of a subject expert, and if he doesn't know there are plenty of talk page stalkers that will know the answer.

I can't see EEng ever increasing the archiving frequency of his talk voluntarily, and I suspect any admin asking him nicely will get custard pies thrown at them. Nevertheless, I would like this to happen simply for usability reasons. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment re: accessibility issues: Extremely long talk pages such as this are miserable for visually impaired editors (whether they use a screen reader, or extreme magnification software). I think there is an accessibility issue with excessively and unnecessarily long talk pages.  // Timothy :: talk  12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually watching the race between DGG and EEng with great anticipation — 328:329 in EEng's favour, at the moment. Anyway, I can't see how we can force someone to archive their talk page on an individual basis (either of them). Updating the policy is probably the way to go, or if it's an issue, raise the matter with them directly. To that: I can't see EEng ever increasing the archiving frequency of his talk voluntarily, and I suspect any admin asking him nicely will get custard pies thrown at them — to the best of my recollection, a couple of years back, I actually did ask EEng (by way of a gentle nudge) to archive their talk page, which he did, down to double digits. Full disclosure, I've also reached the 300 club earlier this summer (diff), but when I (proudly) told EEng about it, he wasn't as impressed as I hoped he'd be, which made me sad. El_C 13:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can award EEng a major award for "Largest Irregularly-Archived User Talk Page"? (conditions of acceptance include archiving their talk page) Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng's talk page as seen sideways from space

• A man's talk page is his castle (or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Or in this case, his dungeon? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Boo, no Moat? El_C 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, but the dungeon does have a dragon. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• .Mine does! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What flavor custard pie are we talking here? Banana or coconut? --WaltCip-(talk) 14:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lemon meringu or bust! El_C 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• No, you're thinking of Carmen Miranda?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I Can See Your House from Here (John Scofield and Pat Metheny album) reminds of of the time I personally met John Scofield, which was amazing! But I won't tell the full story here for fear that Serial Number 54129 will ban me from the noticeboard for good...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 14:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Has EEng ever refused to archive his page when asked? If not, I don't really see the need for an ANI thread.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if "refused" is the right word, but in 2015, this request was ignored and in 2017 and 2018, this and this thread devolved into japes and tomfoolery. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

But on the other hand [10] --> [11] and [12], so apparently a gentle nudge can work. What I continue to find astounding is the focus on the size of a page's text, when it's images that are almost the entire determinant of load times -- a dozen modest-sized images are bigger than all of the text put together.

Now, as it happens I'll be traveling for the next few days, but after I'm settled in next week I'll make a half-hearted token effort that should get you off my back for a while. If I forget please give a reminder. EEng 16:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll keep good care of your pictures while you're gone. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect the answer would be something like "Here we go again with the nannying of user pages. Jesus, find something useful to do." Woodroar (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Might find this query interesting: top 500 longest user talk pages. (Thanks to Firefly for help with that). Both EEng and DGG's user talk pages have killed my browser at various points in time (which isn't to say every time, but I'd just ping elsewhere rather than leave a message there at this point), but they aren't even in the top 100 (granted, some are archives and other such subpages). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Folks, please archive appropriately! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So, you guys are complaining? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, they should maybe remove one or two of their MediaWiki messages...-- P-K3 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK - "The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. " So there's nothing that can be done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's talking more about the choice between setting up archiving verses just deleting threads you've read. Plus, WP:TPG states "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has numerous resolved or stale discussions". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Apart from clarifying policy, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with your original point, Ritchie. It's a pain to have a massive talkpage (or userpage come to think of it) for no apparent benefit. I'm guessing if you were WP:BOLD and did the archive yourself, it would be reverted. As a side note, I do like the irony that a signature should have a link to a talkpage, but your talkpage doesn't have to be accessible due to size limits, with editors being blocked in the past for not conforming with the former! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} — Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 10 March 2021

Getting on my soapbox for moment, I've long felt that this project should enact a different approach to archiving talk pages. I'm recalling my own personal experience, which is now a dim memory. It didn't take long to get the hang of editing articles. It was quite sometime before I ventured into the concept of templates. I needed to begin archiving my talk page well before I had acquire the skills to set it up myself. Thankfully, I'm in a community where others helped, and someone help me set up my talk page archiving which I don't think I've touched since. I'm vaguely aware that there are several bots that can do this and I don't have a full understanding of the differences nor do I care to learn them. I am appreciative that we have editors who are intensely interested in those technical aspects, but I see archiving as a housekeeping effort that ought to be automatic. A very common post at the helpdesk or Teahouse is how to archive tar pages. I don't think users should ever have to ask. (Are your old checks archived by the software you use for your bank? Of course. Did you have to manually set that feature up yourself? Of course not, and it is mind-boggling to think that that would ever be necessary.)

I do not suggest that every new editor should have archiving of the talk page turned on automatically. I think that would generate a little bit of overhead for each one and multiplied by literally millions of users who might only have a couple of entries on the talk page it's not worth it. My suggestion is that they a bot could monitor new editor's talk pages and when may exceed some minimum number of entries, a bot should automatically add the code to create the archives. This code should have parameters so that knowledgeable users who have good reason to have control over the frequency can modify them, but I can't think of a legitimate reason why we would ever allow a user to say archiving is not permitted. I'm open to the possibility that there is such an argument but I can't think of a rationale that makes up for the headaches that large unarchived talk pages create.

I know this is the wrong forum—I ought to be proposing this at VPI, but may be while we are talking about this I could get some feedback on whether it's even worth proposing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, you want to post to his talk page to ask him a favor, and the best way to achieve that is starting an ANI thread about him, to force him to do something? Seems unlikely to result in a favor-granting mood; at least it would be for me. I don't think talking to EEng beforehand should have been considered optional. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Like. And, I mean, which top-tier musical performer goes to hang out with concert goers after a show? Just goes to show that John Scofield is a super-nice guy! El_C 16:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Threesie did ask on his Talk and I think he's awaiting a reply. So he obviously favours a "two-pronged" approach. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Solutions — Friends, let's not dwell on the problem, let's focus on brainstorming some productive solutions. A few ideas to get us started:

1. Partially block E from his user talk page so the rest of us can archive it while he watches helplessly; we can unblock him one day per week to respond to posts; I suggest Tuesdays
2. Steal E's user talk page (move it without a redirect), then split it up into several smaller pages, and offer to return one section for each article E improves to GA
3. Code Legobot to delete the 300th thread on E's talk page

Anyone else have ideas they'd like to share? And if anyone tries any of these, we'll ask you about it next week, on Wait Wait... Don't Block Me! Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• The only serious solution I see is to ping him to an alternate talk page, like your own, article talk, or WP/MOS page. Nothing will be accomplished here. My desktop browser hangs as well, so there is no way my screenreader can load it either, so since I'm denied access to his talk page due to the size of it, alternate solutions are my only choice to communicate with this editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and the dozens of other editors with longer pages. Page length (for screen readers) and size (for loading) are both legitimate concerns, yet no one ever starts the RFC at WP:TPG. (In all seriousness, that's the solution to this problem. An RfC.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC? As I said above, the guidelines already say to avoid going over 75K. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of those things where the rule is so stupid nobody complies with it. 75k is a stupidly-low number. Your talk page is 120k. The page we're on right now is 640k, and that seems accessible enough. E's is 990k, and there are ~100 user talk pages longer than that. The 75k probably should change to 500k or 750k, and it should be applied to all pages in all namespaces, and perhaps some thought given to giving the rule some teeth. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, since I have been mentioned, I have had as many positive notes about the material on my talk page as complaints. I've shortened it somewhat, and will shorten it some more , and, like EEG, I intend to remove images, but I intend to continue using it as a place to show the current status of my views on a number of important issues, including some about which I am frequently quoted. . (I do have subject talk-pages also, but that's an older system that never worked well--what is on them is either obsolete or a duplicate). I find it much more unhelpful that other people don't keep their recent work so easily available. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Nice weather

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

---

Could an admin please have a quick look at the edit summary here[13]. I don't think it is intended to be racist, but I'm not sure it's the type of language we want in edit summaries. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At first, it just seemed like garden-variety trash talk. However, this has apparently been a long-term problem with this IP user. That block log is really quite impressive. Following a homophobic outburst in February 2016, the IP user was blocked for a year. It seems like the disruptive behavior has started up once again days after that block ended. I blocked for two years. I have no doubt we'll be dealing with this again on February 14, 2019. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Crikey - I did not even look into their history. Thanks for looking into it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Good block - Hell must have frozen over, I agree with DrChrissy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice weather.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Indeed, it is brass monkey weather where I live (North Somerset) - intended in a light-hearted way. DrChrissy (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC) As was mine. It's not so much cold here (NYC) as very windy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC) DrChrissy, you should come here; on Sunday we hit a record high temperature, 80°F (27°C), which was eight degrees higher than the old record and thirty-two degrees higher than normal. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC) As I sit here under a blanket with a hot water bottle, 27°C sounds just about perfect. The last time I came to your country for a conference, I went to Death Valley which was 42°C at the time and of course, the rental car's air-conditioning packed up. Fortunately, it was a convertible (Mustang), so roof down and off we went. Great tourist drive, but the sun/wind burn on my nose was quite painful! DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In all this friendly chatter, did anyone look at the edit summary? I don't think it warrants revdeletion. I did revert those Shark fin soup edits. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I could see squeezing it into the realm of "purely disruptive material" but policy discourages using revdel for ordinary vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I figured it wasn't disruptive enough to fit the criteria, but I'm still pretty new at this admin stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Edit summary suppressed. Offensive and unnecessary. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Most Useless Superpower: The ability to always make the worst possible response

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

---

Can someone please pry this user out of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page, or at least issue a stern warning? Post after post after post is just dripping with piss & vinegar making an already-contentious discussion even worse.

• It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try.
• The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia.
• Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are.
• I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism".

The latter is a tacit admission that they're here to argue the topic, not contribute meaningfully to the project. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This comment also confirms we're dealing with a fringe editor (defined as one who believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources). They create problems as they constantly oppose reliably-sourced content, denigrate RS, vandalize articles, and waste the time of mainstream editors. Also, they don't know how to vet sources, a primary requirement for all editors. -- Valjean (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference being excluding someone for espousing wrongthink and banning someone for using talkpages to WP:SOAPBOX. Arguing that this person needs to be "removed" because they're an editor who "believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources" and decides to "waste the time of mainstream editors" pretty much turns them into a martyr and proves their point. If an admin takes action they should make it clear it's not because of this editor's opinions but because of their habit of going onto talk pages for the sole purpose of debating them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's literally what a talk page is for, bringing up or questioning something about the entry.

I "argued" because like in the cases of the other talk pages I "argued" on, it was full of original research and bias and editors who aren't even remotely adult enough to be objective and make sure the article is accurate. There's literally only one talk page you could claim I committed original research in, and that was on local basketball. I've made compelling points in every single Talk page I've commented on that not only challenged the asinine groupthink present in each talk page or article but also referenced credible things that completely refuted or called into question the assertions I was responding to.

Calling me argumentative rather than admitting that I was responding to baseless speculation and childish nonsense that I saw a grand total of one person even bothering to address or question is exactly what I expect from Wikipedia editors these days though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE, an editor absolutely can and should be removed if their edits seem devoted to promoting a fringe theory. Of course, any edits devoted to promoting anything are inappropriate, but per PROFRINGE, promotion of fringe theories is taken more seriously because it has the potential to do more harm to the encyclopedia. It isn't just a matter of being wrong; but holding fringe views is part of the problem when coupled with edits that seem intended to advance those views by eg. disputing clearly-reliable sources (one of the basic examples on WP:TEND.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  That Talk page is literally full of anti-Trump conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You have literally done nothing but post baseless conspiracy theories and denigrate any story that doesn't fit the narrative you choose to believe. It's unbelievably hilarious to me that you have not only the nerve but the complete lack of self-awareness to accuse me of believing conspiracy theories. Comment after comment of yours on that page is literally baseless speculation about it being Trump or the Russians, and the people you all accuse me of being disrespectful towards projected being a Fox News viewer onto me as well as a MAGA type. I'm neither, and you all want to play victim because somebody dared to direct that same vitriol back at you while pointing out how NOT ONE claim you posted or source you linked has turned out to be reliable in the end.

If you had any integrity whatsoever, you'd edit the Wikipedia entry to reflect the fact that sources you consider reliable have now verified the "conspiracy" claims and directly contradict basically the entire first paragraph of that entry.

Instead you want to sling mud and point fingers like a child then play martyr when some gets slung back at you.

I've edited plenty of articles thanks and have kept the same consistent values my entire time here, unlike you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've lost count of the amount of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories you posted in that Talk section. It's at least five if not more.

And you weren't alone in doing that. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha that page is literally full of lies and baselessly conspiracy theories pushed from clearly biased editors who were disrespectful before I ever was but yeah absolutely blame me. So predictable.

I really don't care in the slightest. That page is a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia but par for the course these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is we? You're one person, and I have seen this exact same behavior from you in every single Trump related entry. You have done nothing but baselessly speculate, and your "reliable sources" include blogs written by people who are connected to left-wing extremists and constantly lie and attack others on social media and opinion pieces from people who have been wrong time and time again without so much as an apology or promise to do better? You want receipts? Try basically every single story they've covered over the past five years.

Steele Dossier. Russian interference. The 2016 election being stolen. Every single hate hoax and story they spun or video they selectively edited to misrepresent an event. The "good people on both sides" lie. The lie about calling soldiers losers. The lie about Trump doing literally anything for Putin. The pro Antifa propaganda and encouraging doxxing and glorifying violence. Calling everything under the sun misinformation. The Brian Sicknick cause of death lie. The "Hands up, don't shoot" lie. The blaming white supremacists for the violence and destruction during the George Floyd protests and subsequent riots. The claim people on January 6 planned to kidnap or murder politicians. The actively calling for Trudeau to send in the military over the trucker protest after calling Trump a fascist for protecting DC during the riots of 2020. The refusal to cover what happened to Antonio Mays Jr despite the evidence being out there for almost two years and the acting as a mouthpiece for the people involved with CHAZ/CHOP. Do you want more? It'd literally been five years of lies and the complete opposite of journalistic integrity. Your sources stopped being reliable almost five years ago, and that has been made abundantly clear with each retraction they're forced to make and updated article they're forced to write.

Who are you to question anybody's sources or accuse anybody of believing in conspiracy theories? And who are you to label anybody argumentative when I've yet to do anything other than point out inconvenient truths and challenge the ridiculous assertions you and others have made with zero proof?

You're literally the ones who started with all the behavior you're accusing me of. Grow up. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would pick out isolated bits of content to which you object, and then discuss them in the context of what RS you can cite say about the matter, THEN we'd all be able to have a constructive discussion with you.

In fact, you might even convince us to change our minds because, as it so happens, we hold our opinions because they are based on the RS used in our articles.

But you have not chosen to use such constructive dialogue. Instead you have accused, complained, impugned our intelligence, insulted us, and otherwise violated WP:NOTFORUM in a manner that shows a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. You'll have to do better than that. -- Valjean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a serious comment?

You've called me a conspiracy theorist and implied I'm a Fox News viewer and MAGA type more times than once and thrown disrespect my way, all unprovoked.

You've literally done every single thing you're accusing me of multiple times, and have done so completely unprovoked. You're the one who turned it into a Battlefield, and you did it way before I made a single comment. I'm just the only one who responded in kind. This is all there for anybody to see. You gonna blame your behavior in those other topics on me as well? Or hey how about when you started an edit war with Mr. Ernie but accused him on his talk page of being the one to do it and threatened to have him disciplined? You seriously think I don't make sure to get receipts before I make a claim? . I'm sure I can find plenty of other examples of similar behavior from you considering I've only looked at a handful of Talk pages you've participated in.

The only time I've ever had a problem on this site is dealing with dismissive and disrespectful people like you yet you have displayed this exact behavior over and over in multiple Talk pages of topics at all regarding Trump. It's all there for anybody to see. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: 24rhhtr7 edited this statement to make it look like I was accusing him of baselessly accusing other users. Originally this statement was about popular political misconceptions. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I've combed this entire wall of text and literally the the only factual statement is the the January 6 protesters did not mean to kidnap or murder politicians. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Literally not true but way to show your maturity level. Every single thing I said was factual and backed up by evidence. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to list some of that evidence? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As one can see in the rambling tirade above about Trump, Russia, CHAZ/CHOP, and the like, this person is just here to argue the topic, it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia. Also the Biden-Ukraine article has seen a 4 different editors in the last 12 hours, with similarly unproductive rants. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rambling tirade? Rant? And you have the nerve to accuse me of argumentative behavior? You're literally acting like a dismissive bully. Point blank period.

You have the nerve to accuse me of being argumentative while you're disrespectful towards me completely unprovoked and rather than actually carefully reading what I write, react like some high schooler. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhh no. I was calling out the obvious bias and inability to be objective of the people who were basically running the Talk page like it was an anti-Trump club meeting. I guess you missed the countless number of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories, the completely unprovoked disrespect and dismissiveness towards anybody who questioned the prevailing narrative being pushed in that Talk section, and the overall complete lack of professionalism from people who are supposed to be objective.

And maybe I'm being "argumentative" because I don't appreciate being ganged up on having my name dragged through the mud by people who can't even own up to their own behavior or see a situation objectively.

I won't be returning to this page so don't bother responding to me or trying to get my attention on my Talk page. I've had just about enough of this kangaroo court you put me through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that articles like the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory are so hopelessly filled with bad content and muddled topics that it is thoroughly impossible to go back and correct everything. This dispute was kicked off with a new NYT piece. I am issuing an open call to uninvolved editors to read that NYT piece, read the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory page, and help make the relevant improvements. I can understand 24rhhtr7's frustration, even if I wouldn't phrase it the same way as they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This stuff is exactly why I've stuck largely to editing mainly uncontroversial historical pages and municipalities. It's amazing the behavior the very people trying to lecture me engage in regularly completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of this case but there is a problem with that article and what it displaces, and extra questioning there is needed. The article should confine itself to "conspiracy theory" items but instead it is Wikipedia's main coverage of all of the real factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material from that era, thus having Wikipedia brand the latter as "conspiracy theory". And "groupthink" could be a part of the cause. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I share your concern. The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in that article. It only belongs on his biography. If any of that material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used there. Currently it just confuses people. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for unacceptable comments like this one, but there are more, including "insanity and childish behavior displayed on that Talk page and in that entry" on their own talk page. I have not looked far enough into their history yet (it took me a while to clean up their posts here, which were done in installments that messed up chronology and indenting), but this already seems one of these cases between CIR and NOTHERE. North8000, Mr Ernie, poor article quality is not a justification for blatant name calling and violations of AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On your latter points, I agree and did not imply otherwise. What's needed "there" is for somebody to start an article on the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine matters, fight off the people who will accuse it of being a fork, and than bring the two articles in line with their titles. But that's not my dance.North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally didn't say one bad thing to anybody unprovoked but yeah no you're totally objective.

Here's what I was responding to on my own talk page, by the way.

"They are personal attacks that only rebound upon yourself as you are obviously partisan. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. We're just people here."

The second time Valjean has called me partisan or a conspiracy theorist completely unprovoked. And I was more than civil in responding. If I were gonna insult any of you, you'd know it.

This is blatant hypocrisy and proof that some of you clearly aren't fit for your positions.

But whatever. You got your scalp. Congrats. I'm really impressed.

Thanks for reminding me exactly why I stay away from articles where people can't constructively work towards an accurate and factual entry, which sadly is many these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted a discretionary sanctions notification at your talk. You will be topic banned unless future comments focus on actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're literally dragging my name through the mud and putting me through a trial, and I can't defend myself? I can't point out how certain editors have engaged in exactly the kind of behavior they're accusing me of and worse or point out when somebody is very clearly not being objective about a situation where the evidence is there for everybody to see and/or says completely uncalled for and disrespectful things like "rambling tirade, unhinged, rant, conspiracy theorist" or accusing me of being partisan or argumentative while engaging in uncivil behavior towards me when I haven't ever said a single word to them? Really?

So basically everybody commenting here but me can be as disrespectful and biased and uncalled for as they like towards me and I should just take it and not defend myself or present a counter-argument or pick apart theirs with facts to back my claims up?

Do you literally ever hold these people accountable for their behavior? What they've said on that Talk page, on my own Talk page, and here is ten times worse than anything I did, and they did so completely unprovoked.

There's been multiple disrespectful comments and at least five Trump-Russia conspiracy theories added to that Talk page in the time I've been temp banned alone. Plan on doing literally anything about that? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried whining about it yet? Evoke Heir (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so impressed by how hardcore you are. I mean I totally haven't been around that energy you're sending at me completely unprovoked my whole life or anything. It's totally new and tough and hilarious in a completely original way.

Note how I've been civil while you're trying to grandstand on me and showing exactly your maturity level.

You know what's funny though? Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody. I've never had to talk that stuff a day in my life. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You think Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody is a WP:CIVIL comment? Paging Drmies... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, while I agree with you in substance, it's such a feckless comment that I am not sure it's worth continuing the tsuris. Just an outside thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With one feckless comment, I'd agree. But with a wall of them, it's a chronic issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Have you tried whining about it?" is?

Don't direct that tough guy energy at somebody unprovoked like this person did if you aren't ready to have it directed back at you.

Thank you so much for jumping in and giving me an opening to post all my evidence of your behavior on that Talk page. That was very helpful of you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you responding, again, to a troll account that was blocked several days ago? --JBL (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been on this page or edited Wikipedia and was not aware this person was banned. My mistake. I was responding to Muboshgu in my most recent comment though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention soibangla broke a rule against reverting edits three times and was merely warned, this on top of the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect they have directed at other editors who don't agree or point that out or make a general and largely civil comment this particular editor doesn't like.

or how the person warning him has been engaging in the exact same conspiracy theorizing and completely unprovoked disrespect towards the same people as soibangla and Valjean. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You've made your points and I can understand your frustration, but it would be more helpful to link to diffs where you believe other editors have been uncivil so it is easier for uninvolved passersby to verify. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I copied and pasted at the bottom of this section because I don't know how to link to talk page contributions. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, I encourage you to demonstrate the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect and that I have referenced nothing but opinion pieces[14]. If you cannot, I encourage you to retract. I am prepared to demonstrate many instances of your persistently disruptive and uncivil behavior that includes false or misleading assertions. soibangla (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

I always have receipts. I'll have my proof copied and pasted in here by end of day EST. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There are other behavioral issues by other editors that need to be examined, as it is unfair to put singular focus on 24rhhtr7. At 24's talk page, Valjean writes "Don't make accusations of partisanship" directly before saying "you are obviously partisan." A few days ago on my talk page Valjean also writes that I am "extremist right-wing partisan warrior" and says my edits are vandalism, without bothering to include any diffs. There is also an edit warring complaint regarding Soibangla which no admin has bothered to respond to. I can understand why 24 feels singled out and unfairly targeted. Our policies and guidelines apply to all editors, so I would appreciate an even handed response by admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, if I mentioned an editor in a contentious ANI discussion, I'd ping them. But that's just me. soibangla (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I should have pinged you. Sorry for that. My thinking was that you were already aware of the edit warring noticeboard discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7's comments here literally suggest they are having a very hard time working in a collaborative atmosphere. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree and they need to take a step back. But we have very experienced editors who are also misbehaving in smarter and less obvious ways. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring those users up on the board, Mr Ernie--let's deal with em one at a time, and not fall for WHATABOUTISM. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla was reported here, but there are no admin responses yet. They all seem much more eager to upbraid the less experienced editor. I had hoped there could be appetite here to look at the simple diffs I provided here, as I dread AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ernie you have been around long enough to skip the Whataboutism aspersions. Any concerns, and you can gather your diffs and file a complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ernie. Where is the same condemnation for these edits? It's certainly within the scope of this discussion. We shouldn't need to restart this process and frequently condemn multiple people when both sides are out of line. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's whataboutism. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Explain how it's whataboutisn when these people dragged my name through the mud for behavior they engage in towards multiple different people completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to worry about that. I'm done playing in the sandbox that is political entries on Wikipedia. This behavior is junior high level.

I appreciate you pointing out the problem behavior I've been referring to this whole time though. Vi respect your objectivity and level-headedness. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That talk page is the furthest thing from a collaborative environment. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: 24rhhtr7 seems to have vanished into the ether after I asked him for evidence to back up his claims. I suspect his claims may actually be unfounded. Drmies, could you please block this user as WP:NOTHERE? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose A break for ~2 days is hardly "vanished" and certainly doesn't meet the intent of WP:NOTHERE/warrant a block. I do not support his conclusions, but it's important for due process so we are consistent in our application of policy. That said, his editing history is sporadic. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I was suspecting that I was a little hasty. I'm not a fan of waiting one month for a response, though. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 11:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone right now for, essentially, not editing. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's called wanting to get away from a toxic environment for a bit and reboot.

And yes, my editing history has always been sporadic. I mostly only edit or contribute when I feel no one else will. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's actually more than enough evidence to back up my claims but I find the behavior and conspiracy theorizing completely disgusting and wanted to take a break before having to read entire walls of text again and copy them. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll list my proof of the behavior of certain editors on that Talk page and the conspiracy theory pushing under this new section here. Be patient with me because it's a lot of text to go through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing to make clear comments are pasted from various other pages as evidence by 24rhhtr7 and are not comments made by other editors in this discussion

Conspiracy theory one, going from top to bottom. 1. Hunter Biden was involved in business in Ukraine (this part is true!) 2. Trump tried to manufacture a scandal out of it by threatening to withhold Congressionally approved funding to the Ukraine (so close to what he's accusing Biden of doing, which sounds like psychological projection to me) 3. Trump is impeached for his crimes (also true) 4. Biden wins the election and then Putin escalates the war rhetoric, likely hoping that Trump's influence would have split us off from Europe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC) 24rhhtr7 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Conspiracy theory two. This one might simply be more of an unproven claim though. This was explained and debunked before the election. He was bragging about getting Viktor Shokin fired because Viktor Shokin was corrupt and not conducting investigations. He had the support of the European community to do so. Doing this put Burisma in more danger, not less. Don't trust memes you see on Facebook. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC) First example of completely unnecessary disrespectful and hostile behavior, again going too to bottom. We are not lying, this page contains nothing but facts. You are swallowing fake news talking points which we have rebutted over and over again on this talk page. Search the archives at the top of the page and read the FAQs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Second example of completely unnecessary disrespectful and hostile behavior. In fact, this is practically the only place where transparent and rigorous analysis is applied to achieve the best possible understanding of these matters. Those who think it's all so unfair have only themselves to blame for not participating in the article but rather incessantly whinging on Talk pages without accountability. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Third example of completely unnecessary hostile behavior. I have no idea what any of that means. But hey, maybe login and prove the errors of my ways in the article. Go on...do it. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Fourth example of completely unnecessary disrespectful and hostile behavior. Provide verification for "factual information". If it's that NY Post article from October 2020, just don't bother. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Here's my disgusted response to the unnecessary dismissiveness. Note how unlike some I'm fully willing to own my behavior. You say while using opinion pieces as "reliable sources". 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my admittedly not mature response to MrErnie's well-written and levelheaded comment pointing out the actual facts of the infamous Politico story quoting "former intelligence experts" and the fact that the Guardian made the claim that virtually no one doubts the authenticity of the laptop while also quoting Adam Schiff's claim that it's Russian disinfo. Immature and incredulous for sure but my claim was backed up by evidence. The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia. [1] 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here's the resulting exchange between myself and soibangla, in which I admit I was responding to the editor and their unnecessary behavior and beyond obvious partisanship and bias in edits that preceded my comment above rather than what the editor said. The donor was an American who did not disclose he was a lobbyist. soibangla (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Lol no. He's a lobbyist for Russian oil that you all tried to use as proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket. Now he's no longer connected to Putin because he gave EXCLUSIVELY to Democrats? Please. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Here's where soibangla brings up a completely unrelated thing in response to MrErnie's levelheaded comment I referenced above. Do any sources flatly state the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's? And let's not confuse the laptop with its contents. And what are the chances there was a second real laptop? Material similar to the alleged hard-drive contents was reportedly circulating in Ukraine during 2019. One individual interviewed by Time magazine stated that he had been approached in late May 2019, and a second person stated that he had been approached in mid-September. The seller, according to the second individual, wished to sell compromising information about Hunter Biden to Republican allies of Donald Trump for $5 million. "I walked away from it, because it smelled awful", he told Time. Igor Novikov, a former advisor to the Ukrainian president and a disinformation researcher, said that the market for kompromat (damaging material) had been very active in the past year in reaction to political events in the United States, with political operatives rushing to respond to Giuliani's call for damaging information on the Bidens. Novikov characterized the materials available on the market as "extremely hard to verify, yet very easy to fake". On October 19, Derkach posted on social media that he had a second Hunter Biden laptop, stating, "The facts confirming international corruption are stored on a second laptop. These are not the last witnesses or the last laptop." soibangla (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Here's another example of MrErnie behaving as the only adult in the room in response. This is yet another exchange that make's the behavior of certain vehemently anti-Trump editors beyond clear. From the sources above, CNN says A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop, POLITICO writes about new evidence that at least some of the alleged laptop material is genuine, and the Guardian says Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. The Guardian piece is pretty straightforward. Almost no one disputes its authenticity, except perhaps for Wikipedia editors. If I read that piece in The Guardian and came to Wikipedia for more context I would be very confused, especially with this evidence free editorializing in a talk page FAQ point we somehow still cling to. I can find no sources who present any actual evidence, aside from speculation from retired IC officers, that the laptop is not Hunter's or that the contents are fake. I suspect it gained such traction because of the possible influence it had on the 2020 election, despite the actual contents being a nothing burger that wouldn't have had an impact anyways. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Here's soibangla's yet again evidence free response. No need to repeat your sources, I already saw they don't report the laptop is proven fake genuine. What we've always had and continue to have is a physical slab of hardware that may have once belonged to Hunter, so that much might be true, though even that has still not been reported proven. But many continue to conflate that slab of hardware with its contents as though they are synonymous, but they are not. It is standard operating procedure for Russian intel (and presumably others) to mix-in fake documents with real documents, hoping the FBI and CIA will fall for that old trick and conclude that everything is real. And this has been explained here ad nauseam. Nothing has changed, but if it does you can bet the farm I'll be among the first to include it here. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Ok so we agree you don't have any sources that say with evidence that is the case here, and that it is all speculation, despite the sources I've provided saying otherwise? Do you have a rebuttal to the Guardian (the article was published yesterday so I understand if you hadn't seen it before) saying "almost no one disputes its authenticity?" If no, should we build that up in the article? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You're not hearing what I'm saying. The Guardian reports almost no one disputes the authenticity of the laptop. Not publicly, that we know of, anyway. Let's stipulate that the laptop has been proven to have been once owned by Hunter, but he lost it or it was stolen. Beyond that point, can there be any assurance that the contents on the laptop are real? Of course not. And that's what matters here. The contents, not the slab. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC) I hear what you are saying. Should we update the FAQ above which says "The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified," which seems to run contrary to the Guardian piece? Regarding the contents, we have the POLITICO piece confirming some of the material is genuine. I can find no sources confirming any of the material is questionable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Almost no one is not no one, and simply the "fact" it was Hunter's laptop does not in itself establish anything improper, unless someone is upset about porn. We have no knowledge of its chain of custody. For all anyone knows, his laptop was snatched and flown to an SVR lab in Moscow for "enhancement" before being given to Rudy/Bannon. The Politico piece was not picked up by any other reliable source, it relies exclusively on an assertion by some unnamed guy whose credibility is unknown, hence it is REDFLAG and UNDUE. soibangla (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC) You haven't bothered to link to any RS that back up any of this speculation. We should at least be able to find agreement to update the FAQ. What do you think? Is The Guardian's take one we can use here? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I have not speculated here, inasmuch as I have illustrated that there are unknowns, and having exhaustively elaborated on the facts of this article over and over since prior to its creation I am well aware of eager efforts by some to assert these unknowns are now established facts. Moreover, even if the laptop is proven to be Hunter's and its contents are proven authentic, it would still not constitute any smoking gun, as any purported offer of an introduction and any purported "meeting" between Joe and Pozharskyi at a DC banquet attended by many is not in itself indicative of corruption. Even if such an encounter occurred, we have no idea what may have been discussed, and we certainly shouldn't presume anything nefarious. Just because Pozharskyi worked at the same firm as Hunter did and some baselessly allege Hunter was up to no-good doesn't mean we should presume Pozharskyi had nefarious intent, either. We haven't even reached the point that it's been proven it's Hunter's laptop, let alone that its contents actually mean anything. I think the FAQ is fine as it is. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC) If you think having an inaccurate FAQ (which is entirely unsourced) is fine then we just have to agree to disagree. You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources. There is no actual evidence anything you said is true, contrary to the things that are confirmed in the sources I've provided. Muboshgu you asked above for any verification, so what do you think about the new Guardian piece? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here's Muboshgu's childish and dismissive response to MrErnie's request for comment. I was asked what I think about the new Guardian piece. I say it seems like the same bullshit from October 2020 slightly repackaged. Hunter Biden does drugs? Has some questionable relationships? Okay. We'll see what the grand jury produces re: his taxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my incredulous and slightly amused response to the above childishness that you all so kindly posted above our of context. It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here's MrErnie again behaving like the only adult in the room in response to Muboshgu. When you say 'bullshit' are you saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate? It's listed as a reliable source. Are you proposing to remove The Guardian as a reliable source? If not, what are you actually saying? 2001:4450:8138:BF00:0:0:0:6F1 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC) And here's the reply he got. I am not saying that the Guardian article is inaccurate in any way. But, I am saying that there's nothing new here. The Guardian piece is rehashing the same nonsense from 2020 about the laptop with some updates on his court proceedings that haven't concluded. A grand jury investigation into whether or not he paid taxes is one thing. Allegations about influence trading involving his father are as bullshit as they were 18-24 months ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my again incredulous and amused response to this editor's repeatedly dismissive attitude. Lol it wasn't nonsense in 2020 but nice try yet again. Oh, and the New York Times just completely contradicted their story and verified some of the "conspiracy" claims earlier this month. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC) You've speculated a lot here, and you haven't bothered to link to any sources Look, listen. Since before this article's existence I have provided countless sources that quite obviously many have chosen to ignore and come here to make the same bogus arguments and insist on believing what they want and refuse to listen. It just never stops. Why should I jump through hoops like a poodle for this? Prove the laptop is Hunter's. Prove the emails are authentic. Prove that any of that indicates corruption. Get some solid sourcing like the article contains or drop this. soibangla (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC) The onus is on you to back up what you say. I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above. Prove the laptop is Hunter's What sources have evidence it is not? Otherwise accept what CNN and The Guardian say. Prove the emails are authentic What sources provide evidence they are not? Otherwise accept what Politico says. Or here's the NYT, writing "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation." The FBI even wrote a letter to Senator Ron Johnson "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop." Prove that any of that indicates corruption I am not claiming anything indicates corruption, just trying to clear up the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation. If there was any shred of Russian disinformation in that laptop it would have been reported high and low by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC) I guarantee you that you have never provided a source that has any actual evidence to back up anything you've speculated above. Check the archives. Run who wrote that on this article. Please show how I speculated as opposed to illustrated that there are unknowns. It is unknown if the laptop is Hunter's, it is unknown if the contents are authentic, and consequently there is no evidence, let alone proof, of corruption by Joe (and there still wouldn't be even if everything is authenticated). None of what you just wrote proves anything. Tantalizing for social media discussions, maybe, but it does not clear the higher bar for this encyclopedia. Note carefully that the FBI "suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation" doesn't say anything about pro-Russia Ukrainians, such as Derkach whom the Treasury sanctioned for his activities. Read about Derkach in this article and his BLP. Then, just for fun, read more about Shokin's "affidavit" and Firtash, and diGenova's and Toensing's work with them. Note also that we show in the lead that the IC said it found that proxies of Russian intelligence promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration." Also, last we heard, the EDNY is investigating Ukrainians, not Russians. We must not conflate the 2016 Russian collusion narrative with this incident that may not have directly involved Russians, but rather their proxies. This article does not contain "the false narrative that the laptop and information it contained is Russian disinformation," rather it shows that there are many unknowns from "a series of unevidenced claims." No one anywhere has decisively found a smoking gun, and consequently the article reflects that. And the Guardian article provides nothing new to show otherwise. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here's where Valjean starts interjecting their own brand of completely evidence-free conspiracy theorizing. There's plenty more where this came from. IIRC, the more important question is not whether the first laptop originally belonged to Hunter, but the fact that its recent provenance is dubious, just like the second one being offered by sources related to Russian intelligence. How did those laptops get into Russian hands and then to Trump loyalists, all without Hunter Biden's involvement? It all smells like a Trump/Russia disinformation operation. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Since this stolen info was first shopped around in Ukraine, I wonder if the laptops were stolen there while Hunter worked there, then given to Trump’s people? -- Valjean (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC) MrErnie yet again being the only adult in the room in response to Valjean's blatant conspiracy theorizing. These questions sound like conspiracy theorizing. Here are 4 very short and straightforward sentences from RS: NYT "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation," CNN "A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop," POLITICO "...a purported leak of Hunter Biden’s computer files contains genuine material," and The Guardian "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Here is Valjean's defensive response where they not only defend their blatant evidence-free conspiracy theorizing but also accuse MrErnie of behavior he did not actually engage in. Which doesn't address anything I wrote, which is about other aspects of the subject related to the danger of planted disinformation and how the whole thing stinks of a Trump/Giuliani/Russian operation. Note that I wasn't denying your points. They can all be true and yet part of a disinformation operation used to imply unproven wrongdoing by Joe Biden. You need to stop making such implications. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is my response calling out Valjean for their consistent behavioral pattern of posting baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theory while accusing everybody else of being partisan or brainwashed or fringe or extremist or a conspiracy theorist. You're literally just baselessly speculating while accusing anybody who doesn't blindly agree of being a conspiracy theorist. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is MrErnie's much more mature response calling out Valjean for making false accusations and challenging him to take them back or reword them. Note how it has been more than 20 days yet Valjean has done neither of these things despite being active on that Talk page the entire time. This is a very clear pattern of behavior in this editor's interactions with others. I have never made any such implication, so I hope you'll strike or refactor that. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is Muboshgu displaying blatant hypocrisy and bias given the way this editor has displayed much lower standards or burden of proof for the anti-Trump speculating and the claims of the laptop being Russian disinfo. No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation does not mean "it's not Russian disinformation". Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity does not mean "it's authentic". The Guardian article, it seems to me, hinges on this: But should the Delaware panel recommend criminal charges, it could ricochet around the second half of his father’s administration. Well sure, if Hunter gets arrested or indicted, that would be bad for Hunter Biden, and the press will write a ton of articles about it, but there's no guarantee it would have any impact on the administration beyond that. Wait for the future to see. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC) My own admittedly incredulous response to soibangla where I admittedly unintentionally include gossip/rumor regarding Hunter's business dealings being floated by Hilary's campaign in 2015 in with the indisputable fact that Hunter was involved with the people the emails connected him to and possibly get mixed up about the Moscow widow. Again I fully own my behavior. I merely seek to put it into context. You absolutely have speculated. This entire Wikipedia page is nothing but anti-Trump speculation. Hunter's business dealings were mentioned in 2015 by the New York Times, and it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign. There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with. There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow. All of these things have been proven yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be. Then you make these ridiculous speculations about it somehow being Trump because you want it to be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, there was a 2015 NYT article about Hunter.[1] Did it conclude wrongdoing? No. it's been sourced back to Hilary Clinton's campaign Proof? There's no question that Hunter was involved with the people they say he was involved with Such as, and for what reasons? There's no question that he accepted money from people such as the widow of the former mayor of Moscow Actually, there is. All of these things have been proven no they haven't yet you continue to claim it's Russian disinformation entirely because you want it to be Nope. soibangla (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Yup. It's literally what you've been doing this whole time. You've never had any proof to back up any of your claims about it being Trump or the Russians and have referenced nothing but opinion pieces. It's common knowledge that Clinton's campaign put the Hunter info out there to discourage Biden from running against her in 2016. Such as the people he was involved in. All of that is documented fact. His business partner at Burisma just went to jail for fraud, by the way. Why? Because they hired him to positions he wasn't qualified for entirely to lobby his father. It's not exactly uncommon in politics. You just want to believe it isn't true and refuse to accept that it could be. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here is soibangla's childish and dismissive response. It's common knowledge among Hannity viewers, perhaps. Hunter had nothing to do with Devon Archer's fraud case, and Hunter was qualified to provide management consulting seevices to Burisma that didn't require energy expertise. soibangla (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Here's my again admittedly incredulous and not mature response to this completely unnecessary disrespect and dismissiveness, after soibangla reverted my initial response where I basically said they wished I were a Fox News viewer and called them out while responding in kind to their attitude and behavior. Note how I challenged soibangla to explain how Hunter was qualified and how he had no connection to Archer despite Archer's business dealings with both Hunter and his uncle and their being childhood friends. This editor has yet to explain either claim. Sorry but not everybody who doesn't blindly believe left-wing conspiracy theories or blindly trust the mainstream media is a Fox viewer. Nice try though. Explain how Hunter was the least bit qualified for the position he held, and explain how Archer's ties to Hunter and business dealings with both Hunter and his uncle mean Hunter has nothing to do with Archer's fraud case since you want to revert my previous response to you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC) I will give soibangla credit for being the one who posited that the NYT article could be a smoking gun at this point in the Talk page scroll and admit that my responses from then on out were incredulous and eventually more general statements than ones regarding just this particular entry. I have clearly demonstrated that I am far from alone in that behavior though and stand by what I said. I am providing plenty of evidence here to back up my claims about the behavior of others and the very clear bias and partisanship and battleground behavior of these particular editors.

I will start a new section for the conspiracy theories and disrespectful and dismissive behavior that occurred after my exchanges after posting this edit here.24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's still a full half a Talk page of this just as of last night. I am taking a break before tackling the rest. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever collapsed my evidence and put the disclaimer on it that it was copied and pasted from elsewhere. I'm really out of my depth doing this kind of editing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I've just dropped formal sanctions alerts on 24rhhtr7's talk page. I've found that AE is usually a better place to deal with people who're only here to fight battles in ethno-political areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions for what? Love to hear your justification for this. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@24rhhtr7: Discretionary sanctions alerts for editors working in the American politics and Eastern Europe and the Balkans topic-areas, which your edits fall under. (And before you complain about Eastern Europe not being in play, edits about those topic-areas are part of the area as well.) Now that you have been formally alerted to the existence of those sanctions, any uninvolved administrator may ban you from the topic-areas, in whole or in part, with breaches of and attempts to evade or game those bans being met with escalating blocks, going up to a year in length. While these sorts of sanctions are generally levied at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, nothing stops those admins from issuing sanctions based on reports to this board. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about anything but thanks for using that weasel word. I was under the impression that a sanction alert meant it was about my behavior rather than just a notice on the general topic. Again, I am new to these controversial topics. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, "complain" is not a weasel word. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It's a term loaded with condescension and hostility meant to make the recipient of said energy out to be whiny and/or emotional and weak. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, as I advised at your talkpage. Walk away from any article related to Biden or Trump. That means stop posting about it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice but my name was dragged through the mud here, and I was shown nothing but disrespect and childish behavior from people claiming to be objective and adult editors. I have every right to present my case and argue it, and I will continue to until I feel satisfied. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are practically asking for a WP:BATTLEGROUND block at this point. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for yet again proving not just your hypocrisy but your complete lack of objectivity.

I provided incontrovertible proof that the very people who have accused me and threatened myself and others with admin action have been engaging in exactly the behavior they've accused me of and even worse, unprovoked towards multiple people across multiple Talk pages.

I was temp banned for far less than what they do near constantly, and you have the NERVE to threaten me with further action?

How's this for incivility? Literally don't talk to me ever again. You clearly deserve neither my respect nor my civility, and this power tripping comment is a perfect example of why. This process was also the perfect example of exactly why Wikipedia has lost all the credibility it ever had. Congrats on that. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Pinging @Liz:. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 22:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Since Liz is very busy, I will ping three other admins: @El C, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Valereee: This is not WP:CANVASSING; I am merely pinging multiple admins to maximize the chance of a response. I will put this in the ANI Hall of Fame, too. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

JulieMinkai, I don't know why you ping'd me here. I didn't even know this thread existed. El_C 13:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I pinged the best admins I knew so 24rhhtr7 could be blocked for his extremely combative behavior. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I_C. Thanks! But that's a lot of material to review, I'm afraid. El_C 14:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish you good luck! /gen /pos Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To incoming admins: this diff [15] may be of interest. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This has gone on for far too long. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Read the user in question's talk page

I came across user:Sirio today while patrolling newpages, specifically after coming across Dewesoft which is nothing more than a raging advertisement that they've recreated twice today. This lead me to their talk page that had a completely unreasonable outburst and multiple personal attacks:

FUCK YOU, I DIDN'T FINISH EDITING THE PAGE, ADDING REFERENCES AND MORE DATA, AND YOU TELL ME I'M DOING A PROMOTION? SO ALL WIKIPEDIA IS PROMOTION, ADVERTISING AND FAKE NEWS. DON'T BOTHER ME AND LET ME DO MY JOB. Sirio (talk) 3:17 pm, Today (UTC−4)diff

You get paid by wikipedia to fuck around and censor articles written by volunteers who waste time like me. No one pays me to waste time with your stupidities, your censorship will not change this. Sirio (talk) 4:19 pm, Today (UTC−4) diff

and now a legal threat and personal attack: If you have mental problems, you must attach verified evidence, to verify and corroborate before a prosecutor, that the Dewesoft Wikipedia article can be taken as financed advertising, and my link as a user in this regard. One Fact: My IP address is from Argentina, so you will have to prove in your complaint to the court, the way in which the Dewesoft company, from Slovenia, has contacted me, to "promote their page". Sirio (talk) 6:41 pm, Today (UTC−4) diff

I don't know whether they're actually here to contribute or not but it's clear their behavior is unacceptable and not conducive to a collaborative environment and it doesn't appear that a discussion is even possible given their over reaction and insults. PRAXIDICAE💕 22:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• They have been indef blocked by Blablubbs. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  And now they have posted a very WP:NOTTHEM unblock request. Perhaps it should be declined ASAP. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  LET ME DO MY JOB'? What does that mean? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  Crikey! I need a raise! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you found that funny, you should see what Sirio's second unblock request is. Very textbook WP:EBUR. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Truth (The user in question is WeAllSeekTheTruth)

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

---

This is a user I've encountered who seems to be here with a clear WP:AGENDA, largely by promoting pro-CCP propaganda or other authoritarian talking points. I first encountered this user on Democracy in China where they edit warred to introduce PoV. They've also made politically biased edits to Taiwan and Donetsk People's Republic. They've also shown hostility to other editors ("fuck you lmao") and the project at large ("this hellsite", "yall at wikipedia do be drinking the koolaid"). I could see the direction the user was going, so I left them a message advising them to reconsider their edits, and the response was do it pussy go on, continue to consume the State Department rhetoric like the lapdog you are, all while promoting Western propaganda, you khokhol[16]. Keep in mind "khokhol" is an ethnic slur. In short, I can only conclude this user is WP:NOTHERE and would rather engage in racist personal attacks and pushing of anti-Western propaganda. — Czello 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. And the rule that any account with Truth in its name will inevitably be indefinitely blocked in short order continues. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

might change my name to "casualdetruth" just to prove you wrong ^[Humour] casualdejekyll 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was considering "Truthmuzid," but I get the sense I would, in fact, be blocked. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmph! Truth69420 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

"To prison! To jail!"

If you have to come to AN/I to point out your own trolling, you're not doing a very good job at trolling. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See Special:Contributions/114.125.70.196, Special:Contributions/182.1.102.44, Special:Contributions/36.79.233.73. Is an innocent person actually going to go to prison just because someone used their IP as a proxy? 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The IP they seem to have done that with is Special:Contributions/125.25.132.123. 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC) People don't generally go to prison for editing Wikipedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC) But the aforementioned Lese-majeste in Thailand laws are very strict and the vandal seems to have deliberately used a Thai P2P proxy. 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC) How do you know they're actually going to prison? Patachonica (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) We're being trolled. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I don't but the law says they can get 3-15 years of each count. 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Stacking Blocks

Resolved

I didn't know that admins could block themselves! Fortunately we can also unblock ourselves as well. I think I now have the most embarrassing block log on Wikipedia. Don't try this at home. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Others have done this too. This block log is exceptionally funny. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you not get the pop-up notice? John Reaves 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No (I use Google Chrome as my browser if that might make any difference). Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we were meant to have a self-block warning. Is it software or JavaScript? Ale_Jrb^talk 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Or a joke, in which case it's actually quite a good idea. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He might be talking about the popup in easyblock.js (the use is which is pretty much the only excuse for blocking oneself on accident =) –xeno^talk 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All the best people block themselves once. Durova³¹² 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But only a select few block themselves for being an imposter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Curious. An admin can block oneself, yet is unable to confer WP:God-King status flags - even on to an (permissable, naturally) alternate account. I know, I've tried! Does this dichotomy strike any one else as somewhat arbitrary? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• LHvU, you don't want that flag. Not only you don't get any useful elevated permissions, your Talk page attracts all sorts of vandals, kooks & other assorted troublemakers. (You know, stuff like "How was my edits 'original research'??? I didn't do any research at all to come up with those facts!") -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not if I were God-King, would it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind Nick, it might have been worse. You could have accidentally blocked another admin, for example. EyeSerene^talk 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Or could have accidentally blocked a user and not notice for an hour or so[17]. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I got blocked as grawp by a bot. I think I win. :P -- Luk ^talk 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I can only offer this from my experience in a previous life.[18] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I keep thinking about blocking myself to get myself off here and doing something else more productive. Unfortunately Wikipedia is like crack and I just can't go cold turkey. Canterbury Tail talk 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Another admin would surely unblock you. Like crabs in a bucket, we shan't let one escape. –xeno^talk 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done this to myself too. At least I got to see what an autoblock notice looks like.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As punishment for your mistake you must chop down the largest tree in the forest, with.......a herring! Chillum 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We shall do no such thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff happens. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... 1am ... possible WP:EWI Black Kite 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The toy block goes to administrators who accidentally block themselves.

There actually is an award for this... Durova³¹² 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And to wrap things up, the all time champ at admin self-blocks. Durova³¹² 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that per WP:BLOCK it will "almost never be acceptable" to unblock oneself. I suppose it's not that rare after all :) Tim Song (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. While I still feel dumb, at least I'm in good company. I'm yet to block another admin or myself so far today, so that's also an improvement over the last two days. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pure Chaos

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

---

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

---

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

---

Can we please not archive sections which have been closed, immediately afterwards? I have no problem with the closure of sections which have run their course, but please then give people some time (24h or so) to actually see (and if necessary challenge) the close without having to go to the archive page. Fram (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the archiving seemed a bit too quick. I'm all for thinning out the page, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah what happened here? This page looks like the few survivors of some sort of massive cull. Please at least give us time to read the results of threads we may have been following, after all we come from time zones all around the globe. Surely at least 24 hours after a thread is closed is not unreasonable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just 72 hours... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection, 72 hours would be better. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It auto-archives after 72 h, but for a lot of things ("Can someone block this person?" "Done.") 24 h seems adequate. Natureium (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe everyone in WikiWorld has been extra-super good in the last 24hrs, with no issues to report. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone pardoned themselves :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I really wish people would stop manually archiving every single thread as soon as it's closed. I don't have this page watchlisted, and it's getting pretty annoying to see that entire threads are disappearing before I even have the chance to see them. Can we please stop obsessively archiving everything? Give people a day or two to see the threads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that even closed discussions need some time to simmer down and become "cold" first. If anything, it allows users to review and read through them and become aware of anything that they should know about :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think @Swarm and Davey2010: might like to explain their actions, as this precipitous archiving seems to be their work, as I read the page history.

Swarm:[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

Davey2010:[26][27][28][29] - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted something on here and it was archived before I had a chance to respond to someone who answered me. I can't be bothered to un-archive to answer, so top marks there. I'd support a community-based ban for the editor who archived it, preventing them from archiving threads here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You want to community ban Swarm and Davey2010 for archiving threads quicker than you like? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Natureium (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they mean a topic ban. Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, that seems uncalled for. I was amused by the fact that there were only 2 threads here last night. If you are looking for where something went, you know where to check. I'm not saying this is what should be done, but it's not some kind of epic disaster. Natureium (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's first give them the message that what they did is considered unhelpful or unwanted by many, and ask them to stop doing this in the same way in the future. No need to start topic banning people without at least giving them the chance to respond and reform. Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if everyone thinks that closing and archiving a thread less than 4hrs after it was responded to by someone is fine, then I stand corrected. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't think that's okay, that's why I started this thread. But there is quite a wide gap between "this is not okay, please don't do it again" and "this is not okay, you are now topic banned". Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I will agree my archiving today was way OTT, As explained on Jbhs talkpage the short and less problematic ones get archived after a good 4-5-6 hours, The longer and more problematic ones tend to get archived the next day or 2 or as is the case sometimes I don't touch them at all, I don't really know why I archived so soon but yeah sorry!, Shant happen again. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also thanks Natureium for the courtesy ping, Had no idea this was even going on. –Davey2010^Talk 13:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm... If this is an example the attention to detail you use when deciding to archive threads, especially given the Hussein Nishah quote on your user page, I think you should carefully reconsider doing that task at all. It was me that pinged you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: since you explicitly asked two editors to "explan themselves" at ANI—thus re-focussing the thread on editors rather than the abstract—the big red box (see top of page) applies. You should have left notices on the two editors' talk pages: The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I never recieved your ping - The ping I received was from this comment "You want to community ban Swarm and Davey2010 for archiving threads quicker than you like? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Natureium (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" - Any pings before that had not been received,

That respect message has absolutely nothing to do with the archiving of this board! - Perhaps you should put your pitchfork down and reread on my reply. –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010:...what respect message? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hussein Nishah quote on my talkpage the "Treat others how you want to be treated" quote :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that may have been unnecessarilly personal. And, true, you wouldn't have got their ping, because—here's irony—they added it to their previous message rather than in a new one, so of course it wouldn't go through..."attention to detail" indeed  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've just read Alex's reply - The absolutely irony of it all!, Couldn't make it u could ya! :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is only tangentially related but I'm still trying to figure out why the advice here [30] clashes so badly with the comments here [31]... and because @Davey2010: had already NACed it I never had a chance to reply, forcing me to take it to his talk page where Hhkohh got his ears clipped for "clerking the meta areas" and I pretty much got trouted because my comments "belonged anywhere but there". Well the obvious place to ask the question would have been in the ANI discussion, had he not closed it already. ... CJ [a Kiwi] inOz  14:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Various editors and admins agreed and disagreed with those threads and not being an admin I wasn't going to say Yay or Nay to it although my closure of it could be interpreted as Nay, I did say to you to post elsewhere (ie here), I wasnt going to explicitly say on my tp "don't post there" when it could be the wrong advice and I said that all on my talkpage, Your comment is wholly unrelated to this thread. –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you hadn't NACed it I might have had a chance to post the question. Thus I think it is indicative of similar unhelpful behaviour. And I still disagree with your assertion that anyone anywhere disagreed with the advice given in the initial thread, the disagreement was with other ways of dealing with backlogs ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would've been more appropriate to start an RC (and you still can) but IMHO a few (not everyone, but a few) disagreed with the thread and I figured it was more helpful to close but as I said you're more than welcome to start an RFC either here or on any board of your fancy. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nick Thorne, other editors cannot receive your ping if you fix the markup afterwards without signing your post again ([32]), see Wikipedia:Notifications#Alerts. In regards to the recurring trend of manually archiving almost immediately after the thread is closed, I agree that it is beyond unnecessary; I don't really think it necessary reduces clutter; these day I often check noticeboards through mobile, and I can simply minimize sections that have been closed. Finally, CJinoz, hijacking a thread for unrelated question is not very nice. I will answer at your talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Alex Shih I have put up & shut up for a few days now on the previous thing and wouldn't have brought it up at all had Davey's behaviour not been called into question. I referred to the experience simply as an example of similar-but-different unhelpful editing here at ANI. Premature closing is as unhelpful in my eyes as premature archiving - and to point out the apparent stupidity of Davey complaining that I took the question to his talk page when he left me few options by closing the discussion so quickly. As I said on his tp, I knew it wasn't the best place to ask the question but he didn't leave me much in the way of options. I do not appreciate your suggestion that I was "hijacking" anything. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is everyone's, not only two people's, so let the discussion leave at least 24 hours after closure to let more people know the discussion result. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably time to close & archive this... Exemplo347 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose @Exemplo347: Swarm 's comment isn't come. Hhkohh (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was joking... Exemplo347 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well don't. –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you say, clearly prematurely closing & archiving a thread is no laughing matter. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe to get around this we say that nobody can manually archive discussions here, and reduce the auto archiving to 48 hours? GiantSnowman 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reducing to 48 hours seems fine, but banning manually archiving seems unnecessary. Just think before you do it. Davey2010 already admitted it was OTT, and no one is arguing that things should be archived immediately. Natureium (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But what is the need to manually archive? We're trying to fix a problem that isn't there. GiantSnowman 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Shortening the auto-archive interval is likely to result in more premature archiving and, worse, in the archiving of un-closed threads. Establishing some sort of guidance is probably the best way to deal with the issue. Perhaps a minimum of 36 hrs for non-trivial threads and 12 hrs for the simpler 'please do this threads' or whatever rules-of-thumb are generally found to be appropriate. Jbh ^Talk 15:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As a point of interest after being told to "let the bot handle archiving" I looked at a few past archives. As far back as I looked, January 2016, 95%+ of the archived threads were marked 'Oneclick Archiver'. I would suggest that before jumping down the throats of the editors who keep this board from continuously 200K+ you all may want to establish what the new expectations are. I am absolutely sure those who still clean up here will be perfectly happy to follow whatever guidelines are established.

Everyone screws up from time to time, misses something and on the flip side most regulars here can find some instance where another has done something they disagree with. To whomever it was who called for a community ban on an editor for following established practice I must simple say … if you do not like how something is being done mention your disagreement before calling for sanctions. Doing it the other way is bullshit. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a "move to close" followed by a "second" after 24 of no activity, and then archive 24 hours after that if no objetcion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary bureaucracy - if a discussion has been reviewed and closed by an Admin, it should remain closed (pending exceptional circumstances). Allowing 48 hours for people to see the close and challenge it (if required) is more than enough, before allowing the bot to auto-archive. I still fail to see why we need manual archiving. GiantSnowman 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So closed discussions can be removed to declutter the page and open discussions aren't archived too quickly (48 hour auto-archive would lead to more discussions being prematurely archived) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't the status quo to archive closed discussions after 24 hours? That seems fine and sensible to me. Maybe make it 12 hours or something for small issues Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't think 12 hours is good... Hhkohh (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that I generally only archive threads that have been closed (with a box or a Done checkmark) for at least 24 hours, and only do so when the page has >20 threads/250KB on it. *I'll occasionally archive threads sooner if the page is very long and the action taken very non-controversial, or if the thread touches on a WP:BEANS situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be on the talk page anyway? Plus, this thread will get archived when it should remain on the talk page in case it needs to be referenced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have posted this on the talk page if I were posting it, but I wouldn't have posted it at all, as it's making mountain out of a molehill. Natureium (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Response and proposal

I personally agree with leaving closed discussions on the board for ~24 hours before manually archiving. I'm actually a huge proponent of leaving purple-boxed discussions on the board to encourage an organized and efficient culture at ANI. However, it is not something that is established in practice or precedent, so I don't bother to wait the 24 hours as other people just manually archive before then anyways. I manually archived several threads last night.[33] I assessed each thread in that group independently and can provide a reasoning for each individual thread that was archived. I can also provide a reasoning for each individual thread that wasn't archived. I was a little surprised to see Davey immediately archive the discussions I left on the board, bringing it down to 3 threads.[34] But, knowing that Davey was just trying to be helpful, I just laughed and figured if that's what we're doing, I'll just archive the other closed threads and we can have 2 threads on the board. I have to say, there's no doubt it got carried away, and I don't know if we've ever seen AN/I down to 2 threads like that. But it was amusing, and I am confident that no harm was done. I do apologize for my role in the over-archiving episode, and anticipated the complaints. Historically, ANI has around 10-25 threads at any given time, and if discussions are appropriately closed, auto-archiving will keep it on the lower end of this. Manual archiving is a nice option if AN/I is too bloated, but there is not actually any reason for archiving discussions too quickly. Davey is a good editor who was only trying to help and should not be thrown under the bus over this. But, since we're all here, I'll propose a remedy:

The rule "Please do not manually archive closed discussions before 24 hours has elapsed." is added to the AN/I header. I have BOLDly added it myself as I assume it will be without objection, but I welcome anyone to modify the precise wording as they see fit. (The header is located here.) Feel free to opine below. Swarm ♠ 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are times when I think we don't need to wait 24 hours before archiving. I don't think a hard rule is appropriate. In general, you should wait 24 hours before archiving but use your judgement and determine if some items can be archived sooner. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if other people agree, we can soften the wording and make it gentle guidance instead of a hard rule. But based on the feedback above, it's would seem that this is the general guidance from the community. Swarm ♠ 16:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps to start, the header should offer the guidance of generally waiting 24 hours. I haven't seen it an issue until today really where the archiving was far too early. I used to archive this page and I would usually wait 24 hours except for simple cases and extreme vandalism cases that didn't need 24 hours scrutiny. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with a bright line of 24 hours. 24 hours is probably appropriate for most threads. Some contain extensive discussion and should probably stay longer for more eyes. But, on a not-infrequent basis there are things like "Can someone block this person?" "Done.", which don't need to stick around for widespread awareness. I'm not an admin so I'm not going to modify the wording, as this is after all, the administrators' noticeboard. Natureium (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well suggest an alternative wording! Swarm ♠ 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that any wording is necessary. Is this a problem often enough that there needs to be a rule for it, or can we allow people to use uncommon sense? Natureium (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously wording is necessary, because no actual policies or protocols were breached, and yet an unwritten rule not to manually archive closed discussions before ample time has elapsed has been strongly articulated above. If feedback to myself and Davey was all that was needed, that could have been discussed without an entire ANI thread, but since we have one going already, we might as well actually do something to ensure that the community's wishes here are articulated in the ANI header, so that unwitting users do not cause an uproar again. Swarm ♠ 16:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of the one-and-done threads e.g. (X is vandalizing Y --> indeffed) are short and do not really clog things up so, if there is going to be a bright line rule there is no need to clutter it up with exceptions.

That said, I would suggest since I do not think the issue so critical as to require a bright-line rule, that the wording be "Closed threads should generally be left on the page for 24hrs for the information of interested parties, and to allow time to challenge the close." The 'generally' allows for discretion and prevents the odd 23hr archiving from becoming a source of drama. It also articulates why threads should be left up. This gives something to gauge 'generally' against e.g. if it is a 'one-and-done' there may be little reason to not to archive it at 22-23 hrs when part of cleaning up the page. Also, for longer, more controversial, or threads with a wider interest it says why they should be left longer than 24 hrs. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC) last updated: 17:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

*Support proposal - It's 50/50 - On one hand the "Can someone block this vandal" = "Done" threads don't need to stick around for 24 hours but on the other hand I feel if we don't have some sort of "rule" if you like someone else could potentially be here for the same reasons, It's 50/50 but I'd rather have something than nothing at all really. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Editors should normally wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is resolved to manually archive it. The phrase "should normally" is deliberately vague. Or we could make "ANI archiver" a site permission, and come up with a Byzantine process for a community discussion to ensure that people with that privilege appreciate the unwritten rules ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How about all of you thinking about people in other time zones? It's disturbing to come here and see threads that were discussed for a few hours and closed while I was asleep. I'm UTC plus 12 (or 13 DST), so a discussion in the US 7am-noon hours takes place while we're all asleep here and in Australia. Akld guy (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What about Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Editors may want to wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is closed to manually archive it so that interested parties may read it.? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely. How about not even closing for 24 hours? Akld guy (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Another possible alternative wording would be Barring completed requests for routine, uncontroversial action, editors should generally wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is closed before manually archiving. That'd allow the the "such-and-such has serious backlog" - "dealt with", the "would someone please block this blatant WP:DUCK" - "done" and the "now-offline admin closed an RPP-request as "semi-protected for 72h" but forgot to actually *apply* the protection they said they would. Would someone please?" - " Done" and such to be archived quickly while still requiring a minimum of 24h for actual discussions. The "generally" should still allow for case-by-case situations as long as the archiver is capable of explaining why they feel this specific archived thread *shouldn't* wait 24h. Of course, the wording presumes that exceptions even need to be coded into the rule, which there currently seems to be no consensus on. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:-- did you say unsinkable?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• 72hr auto-archive by a bot. For all threads with no activity in that timespan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Alright, reworded with the above feedback in mind. And, uh, Lugnuts, that's already a thing. Swarm ♠ 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me . Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 -Looks good to me aswell. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Might I kindly point y'all away from the bikeshedding and in the direction of Wikipedia:Backlog. ;) TheDragonFire (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the last few years I believe I've done most of the archiving. (I had nothing to do with the recent scorched-earth attack.) I generally wait 24 hours after a close, then archive. Exception: Very simple stuff ("Need help with this move .. Done! .. Thanks") with no "educational value" might be archived faster. Another exception: Threads with a good chance to come back to life (e.g. block of a possibly dynamic IP) I'll leave longer. Another exception: Long threads with many participants stay longer to be sure all have had a chance to review. Leaving everything 72 hours after close seems unthinkable. EEng 19:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Technical query

Related to archiving this page, why do some edit summaries say "OneClickArchiver archived topic X'', while some say "OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to archive page X"? Listing the topic in the edit summary is clearly more useful, and if it's the same tool, why the discrepancy? Natureium (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Some people are using outdated versions of the script. I remember someone told me to update mine once, but I never got around to it. Swarm ♠ 22:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Update your script. Natureium (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to do nothing

• Comment Geez, are you folks trying to make up for the premature archiving by adding as much text to ANI as possible? Can I suggest that everyone take a few deep breaths and calm down. So a couple of editors were precipitous in their archiving of the page -- they both agree that was the case, and it seems to be a lesson learned, so let's leave it and move on. There's little need for more rules or bureaucracy, this was pretty much a one-time event -- at least I haven't noticed anything like in the 10 years or so I've been reading this noticeboard. Why don't we all go back to improving the encyclopedia and let this now non-issue drop? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Pages being archived too early once in a blue moon does not require that we make a new rule. Natureium (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The process we have has been in use for literally years with minor mistakes until this blew up. The most commonly stated practice is leave most stuff around for 24 hours after close and use good judgment on whether to archive something minor and uncontroversial early or to leave an important, long, or controversial thread for longer. Jbh ^Talk 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support and just for the record, there was an AN thread brought against me where I archived some threads and someone didn't like it, so it's not like this hasn't happened before. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Go do something productive. Everyone who has even remotely caused this issue is now aware of said issue and has said they understand the concern and will act accordingly. We've got way more important things to do, like argue about info boxes. (Info boxes are the new Godwin's law. Wikipedia's law?) --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible neutral - I've spent 8 hours responding to pending AN/I threads alone. Yesterday was the first time I've seen the backlog get that low, and it was a pretty good feeling. I think this is, ultimately, a successful social experiment as to what happens when we actually succeed in eradicating the backlog at AN/I: people will make a massive AN/I thread complaining about it. Swarm ♠ 22:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  Everyone knows that if you aren't doing anything else you should work on building a bikeshed. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support A good deal of the threads archived seemed to be non-actionable, at any rate. While perhaps a bit bold to archive everything, I thought it was nice to see the board almost clear, for once. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the Saints and Apostles, someone please close this. This thread should never have been started. The OP should have had a quiet word with the editor who did the archiving. EEng 01:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I don't see a consensus. Is the note at the top of the page going to be removed? Natureium (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the text, since it appears to just be stating long standing practice. No objection to removing it either. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 01:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been here for like a day. BRD indicates that if an addition is in dispute, it's removed. Natureium (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I was basing that statement on reading the above discussion. Per BRD you could just revert and then discuss if someone disputes it. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I BOLDly added it, and it is correct, and it is not a hard rule that needs a formal discussion, and you yourself said it looks fine. If you really think another formal community discussion about that blurb is needed, I will start an RfC on the talk page, but please don't get caught up on strictly procedural objections. Don't drag this out any longer than it needs to be. There's now some guidance in the header so that this doesn't happen again, and nobody else has any problem with it, so please, just let it go already. Swarm ♠ 02:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

• Prompted by a comment in the above thread, I have created Wikipedia:Tarage's Law. Contributions welcome (especially bluing the redlink). EEng 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Beauty pageant frequent flyers

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

I have implored this editor to read multiple notices on their talkpage regarding disruptive editing [35][36][37]. In the final warning I mentioned WP:DISRUPT and taking up their actions up at a noticeboard. They persist in adding formatting contrary to Manual of Style and un-reverting their edits like this and this. They have never replied on their own talkpage and rarely use edit summaries; I'm not even sure they are an English speaker. Help requested here. By the way their editing is all or nearly all in the single topic of beauty pageants, which is covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions/Beauty pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To help the user find their talkpage, I have blocked them, with a link to the page in the block log. Communication is required. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC).

And I've reblocked as a sock; one of our beauty pageant frequent flyers.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. An aviation passenger is a flier. A flyer is e.g. an advertising handbill. You can thank me later. EEng 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, given the abject promotoin, the sock is a combination of both.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not if you are British. DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work everyone. "Beauty pageant frequent flyers" brought a much needed smile to my face. I suspect this is not the only sock right now -- a number of pageant articles recently lit up with similar editing. See my edit history. There's a parallel discussion at User talk:Bbb23#It's beauty pageant sock season again that is probably relevant to this discussion, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncommunicative pageant editor #2

• Satur3435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel sheepish to bring up another one so soon but its kind of the same thing all over again. They are reverting my edits, don’t use their talkpage, and don’t leave edit summaries. Notified for second time here, continued disruption here (just one example). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So, I've done the exact same kind of block again, and also feel sheepish. Ponyo may have a sockblock up her sleeve. Bishonen | tålk 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

Not this time. They are, however, CU-blocked on Commons.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

An overeactive block

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

---

I am reporting a series of conduct issues and WP:COMPETENCE concerns with Cmguy777. This editor and I have intersected with each other a few times because we both primarily edit articles about early United States history. I have observed a pattern of problematic behavior which I wish to bring to the community's attention.

Cmguy777 is the kind of editor to change "to" to "too" when "to" is correct. [38] This editor also adds "the" to sentences when it is totally unnecessary and will shorten paragraphs that are supposedly too long, and in the process leave a paragraph without a reference at the end. This was done to an article that this editor knew to be under featured article review. [39] Here is an example of them at the same article making tiny sections which contain content not covered in the section title. [40] Here he is adding random links an article when the links are already included in the text. [41] Cmguy777 is the most prominent recent editor of the Ulysses S. Grant article, a featured article. Cmguy777's continued addition of trivial content to the article is primarily responsible for the fact it now stands at a ridiculous 18,594 words. Search through the editing history from the last couple of years, and you will find him adding large amounts of content-more than any other editor-to an already long article. From a cursory glance, his excessive piling on of content seems to have more or less destroyed that article and made it a suitable candidate for featured article review.

On the Ulysses S. Grant talk page, Cmguy777 advocated removing mention of Grant being ranked poorly compared to other presidents from the article on the basis that historians who ranked him poorly were racist. [42] That appears to be an example of attempting to censor scholarly voices because of personal bias.

There is an ongoing content dispute at Andrew Jackson. Cmguy777 has been heavily involved in the dispute, despite admitting (upon being asked), that a 20-page summary of Jackson's presidency by historian Richard B. Latner in a larger work about presidents, which he kept trying to promote both in the article and on the talk page, was the only scholarly source that he had read about Jackson. This editor's behavior there has been, from start to finish, atrocious. The issues at this article center around allegations made by some editors that the article is too favorable to Jackson. Cmguy777 added an unfavorable assessment of him to the Legacy section. However, what he chose did not come from a book. Instead, he dedicated a new paragraph to a single-sentence summary of a Vox article written by a non-scholar. [43] There were entire books on Jackson written by scholars that didn't receive that much attention. He also added a citation to the page in the Bibliography [44] even though the Bibliography is clearly only for monographs, not websites. After the source was removed from the Bibliography, Cmguy777 went on the talk page to shriek hysterically about censorship. [45] When told that the work should not be used because it was not written by a historical expert, he made an absurd comparison to Ken Burns' Civil War documentary, as if that and this random Vox article were of similar importance. [46] After this was removed, Cmguy777 added a critical assessment of Jackson from the Latner source. [47] Part of the content that he added was a sentence saying that Jackson was hostile to abolitionism. I told him that the sentence should be replaced because it did not say anything about Jackson's legacy but simply repeated a basic fact that was already mentioned earlier in the article. Instead, Cmguy accused me of having an issue with Latner. I tried to explain multiple times that my problem was not with Latner but with the sentence, but he wouldn't listen, and despite my protests, continually accused me of having a bias against the source, while also making broad statements about Jackson and slavery that had nothing to do with the conversation. [48] [49] [50] [51] It's impossible to communicate with an editor who behaves like that.

An RfC was started on the talk page about whether to describe Jackson's Indian removal policies as "forced removal" or "ethnic cleansing." Cmguy777 disrupted it by posting off-topic and inaccurate statements about Jackson supposedly defying the Supreme Court by removing the Indians. However, the Supreme Court never ordered Jackson to do or not to do anything concerning Indian removal, so the statement was not correct. Not only that, but Cmguy posted these comments, which were not related to the subject in the RfC, in the section of the talk page devoted to the RfC, and did so in multiple different spaces, breaking the flow of comments. [52] [53] [54] [55] An editor respectfully pointed out this problem on his talk page, [56] and he neither responded nor did anything to fix it. I went to Cmguy777's talk page to complain about these edits. Trying to justify his false claim that Jackson defied the Supreme Court, he said that our article on Jackson says that he did not enforce the Court's ruling. It was a misleading statement, because the article says, in reference to a Supreme Court ruling invalidating a Georgia law preventing whites from entering Native American lands, that Jackson did not enforce it because there was nothing to enforce. [57] I pointed this out, and he responded by accusing me of harassing him. [58]

Back on the Andrew Jackson talk page, Cmguy777 made a post seemingly accusing those disagreeing with his position on the article as being white supremacists. To his credit, he later struck this statement when an editor advised him to do so. Here is the diff: [59] In typical Cmguy777 fashion, the edit was placed beneath an unrelated comment rather than the comment to which he was responding, making it difficult to follow the conversation.

Cmguy777 has engaged in disruptive editing at the article by twice adding material that was being debated on the talk page to the article without consensus or prior discussion. [60] [61] Most recently, I started a new section with a proposal to try to resolve issues with one of the sentences in the lead. [62] Cmguy777 posted a message in response which basically ignored the proposal and instead contained, in a typical manifestation of that editor's behavior, unfocused ramblings about various aspects of Jackson's life with no clear suggestion for improving the article. [63] I was trying to find a solution to disputed material in the article. Edits like these distract from such attempts and keep disputes active after they should have ended.

In sum, Cmguy777's edits to articles are disruptive and unhelpful. Talking to Cmguy777 is extremely painful because they either cannot or will not engage in rational discussion. I believe that this editor is either a troll or there is a COMPETENCE issue that simply makes them incapable of productive edits or reasonable discussion. Perhaps it is some combination. The scary part is that they have been here since 2009, so this isn't some new editor who is just figuring things out. Whatever the reason for their misbehavior is, they should not be allowed to continue disrupting Wikipedia like this. I propose a block from editing or at least a strong warning to desist against future disruptive behavior and to encourage constructive discussion on talk pages. Display name 99 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Response: I have not made any recent edits directly to the article but just resolved to talk on the talk page. Anyone can edit on Wikipedia. Unfocused ramblings? This is not true. I have made many suggestions to improve the article, including adding the term "African American" to the introduction and Latner's (2002) commentary in the Jackson reputation section. I had thought that Display name 99 and I had come to an agreement on adding ethnic cleaning to the last paragraph. I felt discussion in this manner had been stalling. My only motivation is to get Jackson to FA and remove the neutrality tags. If my action in that manner was premature I apologize. The article, as mentioned, is under current neutrality tags. There is a dispute over using the term ethnic cleansing. I believe this is a personal direct attack on my good faith editing of the article and talk page by Display name 99, who seems to control the article as to its content and must need Display name 99's approval. I do not shame other editors but encourage all editors to improve the article. I have created many articles on Wikipedia. My only intention is to get the neutrality tags removed on Andrew Jackson and get Andrew Jackson, a true American patriot, on a featured article on Wikipedia. I did take a break from the article's talk page, but my name was brought up on the talk page. Frankly, I am glad to have had this conversation. I feel that editors, including myself, are under the intense scrutiny of Display name 99's hawk-like oversight of the article. I have no desire to edit or contribute on the talk page to the Jackson article under such hostile circumstances. In an effort to cooperate, I will stop editing the Jackson article for a significant time, a month or more, including the Jackson article's talk page. I hope this will meet Display name 99's approval. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cmguy777 FYI, in case you are working on early American history -- it is correct to say that an officer "resigned his commission", not "resigned from his commission". See [[64]] 71.228.112.175 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Noted. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• First, the OP's initial comments are WAY too long. I didn't read all of them, but before they get to the Jackson issue, all of their diffs are from 2021, and much of what the OP accuses Cmguy of look inadvertent to me (like too instead of to). Second, Cmguy has about 50K edits and no blocks, whereas the OP about half that many, which is still a significant amount, and many blocks. Finally, I am not convinced that there is any significant problem with Cmguy. I certainly see no evidence of incompetence. For reasons that are unclear to me, it looks like this is one long personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 4 Septemeditor22 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. Yes. I agree this is a personal attack on my integrity as an editor by the OP. Non the less I am steering clear for awhile of Andrew Jackson article to avoid any more personal attacks by Display name 99, the OP. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I was also involved on the Andrew Jackson talk page and RFC where Cmguy777 and Display name 99 disagreed. This report seems retaliatory and is too long. Display name 99 has been warned of WP:TEXTWALL. I think Display name 99 should either present a narrower case of recent disruption or withdraw this report. Andre🚐 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Display name 99: Your report is far too long. Chop it down to around 200-300 words please. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• The report is as long as it is because I feel it needs to be in order to document the numerous instances of what I consider to be this editor's unconstructive behavior in both articles and talk pages. I cannot shorten it further. If you don't want to read the whole thing, you have the option of just picking a few paragraphs and responding to that. I won't withdraw the report because I believe that it is merited, but I won't attempt to force people to accept what I'm saying if they don't want to. Display name 99 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Display name 99 Blocked indefinitely: I've p-blocked Display name 99 indef from the article and talk page, because even a glance at this lengthy and attack'y report, at the article, and on its talk page, show consistent misconduct. Block notice here. El_C 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C, for such a drastic action, I would expect specific examples of misconduct by myself at the Andrew Jackson page and the talk page page to be mentioned by you. Your failure to include any is disappointing. Cmguy777 has edited disputed material on the Jackson page without consensus. On the talk page, he has seemingly called editors white supremacists and frequently posted rambling (and sometimes factually untrue) comments with no clear suggestions on how to improve the article in the middle of discussions on unrelated issues, impeding the ability of other editors to communicate. Please explain how that is not misconduct but whatever I'm accused of doing on those pages (I can still only guess because you haven't explained it clearly) is. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not gonna prove a negative, because that's not a thing. But if you continue to attack other users, the indefinite sitewide block that was imposed on your account in 2021 is likely to be reinstated. And, if you continue to reject submitting a normal report that isn't filibuster in length, which no one is gonna read, then there's nothing really to talk about. In any case, you are welcome to convince another admin to lift this block by using the {{unblock}} feature. Thanks. El_C 00:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Random example from the article talk page (diff): Yes, of course, I should have known that Cmguy777 would come by to leave a rambling comment with an unclear point that in no way helps move the discussion forward. Also, you say that the lack of editorial consensus on ethnic cleansing needs to be addressed. How? You can't force there to be consensus if there isn't. Stop trying to pretend like you can. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC) — El_C 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That one was over the line, yes, but it was not an unprovoked attack but the result of understandable frustration with constant disruption.Display name 99 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not understandable, that's the point. Three admins now have told you that you need to put up a normal-sized report, or drop it. But you were, like, nah. So, it is what it is. Also, a "drastic action" would be to indefinitely block you from all of Wikipedia, as you had been twice before, not simply two pages out of ~six million. Meanwhile, as mentioned, unlike yourself, your opponent has been blocked zero times. El_C 00:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? It's not understandable? Have you read the talk page and seen Cmguy777's off-topic and almost incomprehensible comments? To block me indefinitely from two pages, including an article that I successfully brought to featured article status, while citing no specific examples of misconduct, and later adding just one example of a slightly uncivil comment made to an editor who had been actively disrupting discussion on the page for weeks beforehand, and meanwhile ignoring that misconduct, is not acceptable. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, really. No, I haven't in full. But you were given an opportunity to explain yourself without the filibuster, yet you declined. That is why we are where we are. Again, you can make use of the {{unblock}} function at any time. Any admin should feel free to do whatever with the partial block, including lifting it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified about that. El_C 01:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You are free to take issue with anything you like about my report against Cmguy777. That is not, however, a sufficient reason for blocking me from the Jackson article and its talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously, I thought a WP:BOOMERANG was called for. And, seeing as one of the admins who participated in this discussion and who had expressed similar concerns as myself, just declined your unblock request, I'm not the only one to think this. El_C 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point, which is your refusal to provide evidence of misconduct to justify your block, which at this point is downright appalling. And an administrator who participated in the discussion probably should have let an uninvolved administrator review the request rather than doing it himself. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't address the point in your view. And an uninvolved admin does not become involved simply by commenting on an ANI report in their capacity as an uninvolved admin — see WP:INVOLVED. Sorry, I don't have much more to add beyond that at this time. El_C 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I'm sure I don't have to remind you that I, as an uninvolved editor in the content disputer or in the history of the article, weighing in only after the article came to WP:FAR (now on hold pending the outcome of the RFC), have noted that you have very concerning ownership issues at that article, even if we account for WP:FAOWN. I am not familiar with Cmguy's behavior, as I intentionally avoided reading the content dispute so I could remain neutral until the FAR resumes, but your responses wrt the article size indeed indicated ownership problems are in play at this article. To bring an ANI, when your own behavior will be scrutinized, implies that you may be missing quite a few points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have said that I disagreed with you about the article and would protest against your proposed changes within the rules of Wikipedia if an attempt to implement them was made. Any editor has the right to protest changes to articles that they believe are harmful. Display name 99 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

What you said was: " I would rather lose the bronze star than lose vital information in this article." I gave you two side-by-side examples of excess verbosity of non-vital information, and had to remind you that it's not your decision whether an article carries the bronze star, rather the community's, and that I was by no means the only editor who held the opinion that the verbosity needed to be trimmed; there were two others.

Further, that you brought an ANI with such an excess of verbosity when my very complaint about the article is ... excess verbosity ... gives further concern about your own cluefulness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Could you please reconsider your block? I've been working a little on Andrew Jackson as well, and have interacted with Cmguy for years. Have you? Almost every competent editor who works with him has had our patience tried with his style of editing. I'm trying to be kind, but I don't know how to put it other than that he isn't very competent. In June a university professor/Wikipedia editor asked me for advice in working with him; we discussed the situation by private emails. Ask User:Alanscottwalker or User:Parkwells.

Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites. He expects modern sensibilities in people who lived one or two or more hundred years ago. He makes lots of spelling and grammar errors. He doesn't know how to use sources properly. He knows how to cite them, but typically finds some passage somewhere that he likes and vigorously tries to insert. I cringed when I read that Display name 99 said he "went on the talk page to shriek hysterically about censorship," yet I knew exactly what he meant. That's actually an apt description, just inappropriate.

And Display name 99 rightfully complained that you gave no specific reason for blocking him. His complaint was too long? Did you look at the talk page and follow Cmguy's comments? Perhaps Display should be admonished, but I don't see why he gets an indefinite P-block. Please consider unblocking him. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps both of them need to stand aside from the article, so the many competent editors at FAR can sort the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yopienso, thank you! Finally, a voice of reason. I'm not a patient person normally, and what little patience I've had has been exhausted by the drama at this article, whic has now dragged on for about a month and a half. I have not always made my point in the best way possible, but my point is correct. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please take to heart what other editors are telling you about your own editing. I've always found SandyGeorgia to be fair and reasonable. At the moment, I do think El_C was hasty in blocking you and over-zealous in making the block indefinite instead of for a few days. Nonetheless, since you realize you aren't normally a patient person, this action against you shows how important patience and collaboration are, not only at Wikipedia, but everywhere we interact with other people. Wishing you the best, YoPienso (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Yopienso. I'm not attacking SandyGeorgia's character. I feel like he's just wrong about the article. He is asking for the article to be cut in half when it is already within the realm of what is considered an acceptable length per WP:SIZERULE. It is well within a normal range for U.S. presidential biographies and was promoted to featured article at slightly above its current length. There simply isn't justification for the changes that this editor is proposing. I promised to protest these changes if someone tried to implement them, and explicitly said that I would do so within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules. I fail to see anything wrong with that. Display name 99 (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't think you were attacking anyone; I was encouraging you to listen to their good advice. It would be wise for you to stop commenting here. You're protesting instead of listening. This is my last comment to you, not because I'm being mean, but because it's just time to stop the conversation. We're not in our own private corner but on a Wikipedia talk page. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

DN it's so unfortunate that you are missing the bigger point (than size), which is that I was offering you a way to develop a collaborative environment on the article. That is what you turned down, quite stubbornly, I might add. When three editors agree with me, it appears there's a problem with how you have approached the dispute. Again, I don't intend to say Cmguy is right; I am ignorant on that matter, intentionally. But I know for sure that your approach will not lead to collaboration or to solutions. "My way or the highway" is rarely a good approach, on Wikipedia or IRL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reduced the length of the article by almost 2,000 words. It was at over 17,000 words before and is now less than 15,300. That isn't "my way or the highway." As far as reducing the length further, we simply disagree. Disagreements happen. I don't own the article, so if there is a consensus to reduce the length by more, I wouldn't be able to stop it. But I don't have to agree with it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not inclined to unblock on the basis of your reasoning. If anything, your comment (shriek hysterically about censorship, etc.) only further reaffirms to me that it was the right call. El_C 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

To whom is this directed? YoPienso (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It was directed to you, Yopienso, which was why my edit summary read: reply (YoPienso). El_C 01:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary is what made me wonder if it could be directed at me. That wasn't my comment, which is why I didn't think it was for me. I was quoting Display name 99. I said I cringed at it and I called it inappropriate.

Please consider slowing down a little. YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was you. I'm aware it wasn't you. If it was said by you, why would I blame DN for it? It's just a personal attack by DN that I wasn't privy to until you mentioned it. El_C 02:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That said, Yopienso, you come to my talk page with a lengthy unblock request on behalf of DN (link) that also attacks a different user, so not that stellar on your part, either, if we're gonna go there. El_C 02:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C, you have mainly cited my post at ANI as the reason for your block. I made that comment about Cmguy in my initial post, but you weren't aware of it until now? So you're admitting that you did not read the post that I made which helped serve as the impetus for your block? How is that appropriate? Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you outright refused to trim your lengthy report even after multiple admins asked you to do so, was key in my determining that a WP:BOOMERANG was warranted. Also, you want the block to be lifted because I overlooked a personal attack by you? That makes no sense to me. El_C 02:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Two administrators complained about length. Only one asked me to trim it. I only refused because it was not possible. I could not trim it without losing details of the complaint. If I could have trimmed it without cutting examples, I would have done so. Display name 99 (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This feels circular at this point, so I'll leave this to other admins. I suppose you could argue that my missing a personal attack by you is grounds for an unblock.

Or that your claim that trimming your very lengthy OP was "not possible" is likewise grounds for an unblock. Personally, I don't think it'll work, but who knows, I guess. In any case, I'm unlikely to respond further for the time being. El_C 02:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Now that this has calmed down, can you please give me some constructive feedback?

1. Do you think the block was hastily applied or properly applied? Do you think the block was fair? (I think it was hasty and harsh.)
2. Do you think I was attacking anyone, and if so, who? (I wasn't attacking anyone--an attack is deliberate and I know my intentions. But, did I inadvertently bump into somebody?)
3. Do you think User:El_C is being heavy-handed or do you think he did a good job on this report? (I think he was brandishing the mop in people's faces instead of wiping up the floor with it. I think he was relishing his power.)

Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is lovely... relishing. But thanks for the ping, I guess. Anyway, I don't know your intentions nor did I comment on these, but you did attack Gwillhickers on my talk page for no apparent reason (link again). And now you're attacking me. GG. El_C 04:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't defend everything that I wrote on the talk page or in my original post, but I agree that the block was both hasty and excessive. It didn't have to be indefinite when it could have been a few days. I appreciate Yopienso making these points. I don't think that he attended to attack Gwillhickers. I read his comment as an attempt at humor that maybe didn't come off as intended. I've never interacted with Gwillhickers as far as I can recall, so I don't have any opinion of that editor one way or the other, and thus my reading of the comment is totally impartial. Display name 99 (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Gwillhickers certainly didn't think it was a joke, but rather, viewed it as an attack (diff). Maybe YoPienso thinks that by attacking me now, instead, that will help you somehow...? I dunno, either way, it's disconcerting. One thing is certain, there's no shortage of troubling behaviour as it pertains to the Andrew Jackson page. El_C 04:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well we are in agreement there. However, indeff blocking me from it in part on the basis of "perennial disruption at both the article and talk page" while only citing as evidence one moderately uncivil comment that I made on the talk page (and that after I had to ask) clearly isn't helping to fix the problem. How about this. This thread started because of my issues with Cmguy777. The problematic behavior that I observed by him extends to multiple articles. Yopienso certainly sounds like he can point out even more examples. But if I were to repost my original comment including only the parts about the Jackson talk page, and removing the parts that were too strongly critical and deemed personal attacks, would you consider removing the block? Display name 99 (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm done. And if that helps you with an unblock, I'm fine with that. But again, the p-block was largely a WP:BOOMERANG block, so that might be worth keeping in mind. El_C 05:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites." Wikipedia has a choice about the future and it is right here. We can look at this shit and say that it is merely a difference of opinion or we can boot people like this out of the fucking community. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that's significantly more uncivil than anything I've posted either here or at the Jackson talk page. Display name 99 (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty uncivil to tolerate this kind of open bigotry. Protonk (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You not liking something another editor says does not mean that the other editor's statements are not tolerable. We don't ban editors because Protonk says they're bigots. Display name 99 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Still not hearing you distance yourself from that sentiment. Protonk (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to distance myself from it. Display name 99 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Protonk, Yopienso, and Display name 99: I'm having trouble understanding what everyone is saying. First, the quote is from YoPienso's comments earlier in this thread. Yet, YoPienso did not respond; instead, DN 99 did. It seems that Protonk is, on their own, demanding that Cmguy be indeffed for anti-White bigotry and that they are unhappy with the fact that DN 99 does not agree with them. I might point out that at least in their comments, YoPienso offers no diffs in support of their allegations of bigotry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I believe that is exactly what this sub-thread is indicating. I don't know if Protonk has seen any damning diffs but his quoting of Yopienso makes it seem like he hasn't, and that this flag was just picked up off the ground because of what Yopienso offhandedly mentioned. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

???????? I'm sorry but this is the LITERAL opposite of what I'm implying. I apologize for being terse and too vague. It must have been my mistake for the implication to be read that was endorsing this behavior and not pointing out that "Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites" is an absolutely unacceptable statement and one which ought to call into question whether or not the speaker ought to be in the community. I have no complaints about CMGuy but YoPienso, who decided that was something which was ok to lob at an editor and DN99, who saw no problem with the sentiment, should be shown the door. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh I see. The quote just happened to be a coincidence of a highly inappropriate casting of aspersions intersecting with an inappropriate racial attitude. I genuinely read that as you taking a stand against the implied racism. Thank you very much for clarifying. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm still waiting for you to retract or substantiate this deranged interpretation of my comment. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It was clear to me that Protonk was reacting to the statement by Yopienso, which I agree was inappropriate. As Bbb23 says, Yopienso did not substantiate their allegation, furthermore, it is unlikely to be substantiated. But in case it wasn't clear, Protonk is saying that what Yopienso said was inappropriate, and that DN99's reaction to it also inappropriate. I have not seen evidence that Cmguy is biased against whites, and that seems to be at least a highly inflammatory accusation. Andre🚐 01:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, perhaps the allegation made by Yopienso should have included specific examples to back up the point, but it's not an inflammatory allegation if it's not worded unnecessarily harshly, which it wasn't. Protonk's response, saying that he should be kicked "out of the fucking community" and calling it "bigotry" (and then later saying that I should be banned as well simply because I decided not to condemn it) is what's really inflammatory. It's more inflammatory than anything I've written in this ANI thread or at the Jackson talk page. I've never called for Cmguy777 to be banned entirely from Wikipedia, even though he drives me absolutely insane. Your decision to ignore Protonk's vicious response and instead act like YoPienso was in the wrong is pretty nearsighted. I see that nobody has responded to my post below pointing out provocative comments made by an editor at the Jackson talk page whom ARoseWolf accused me of bullying, and whom I think they were referring to when they were talking about editors leaving the discussion at that talk page. Right now, it seems like there's a double standard at play here in which people on one side are harshly dealt with for stepping out of line, while people on the other side are allowed to say almost anything that they want without consequences. This doesn't excuse my own lapses in civility, which I acknowledge and which I recognize need to change, but until people like you and El_C start holding other editors like Protonk to the same standard as you do me and Yopienso, I simply can't take you seriously. Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I am just a guy who was involved with you on the Jackson noticeboard post and RFC. My observation is that you're responding more to tone than to substance. I didn't echo Protonk's call to ban you, but I think El C's block is sound. You have too much emotional connection to the article. I know, because I've been there, and I understand your feelings. But you have to listen and learn. As far as Yopienso's comment, it is absolutely inflammatory and inappropriate to accuse an editor of racism with 0 evidence. I didn't echo Protonk's call to ban Yopienso. However, I think Yopienso should retract their allegation or provide evidence. Andre🚐 02:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not an admin, and I'm sorry that you think it is ok to complain about "anti-white bias" but consider the word "fucking" to be uncivil. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I neither endorse nor refute YoPienso's allegation, as I have not seen enough evidence in Cmguy's behavior to accuse him of racism, but your apparent belief that it's okay to say bad things about white people on Wikipedia and that anyone who complains about it should be banned is quite upsetting. Display name 99 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

My heart bleeds for you. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Say bad things about white people"? Who did that? Cmguy? Where and when? Andre🚐 02:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No, not Cmguy. Protonk claimed in essence that anyone who makes complaints about anti-white bias should be banned from Wikipedia. I was objecting to his statement. I do not accuse Cmguy of making racist statements against whites. Display name 99 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a mischaracterization of Protonk's statement, Protonk seemed to be referring to the WP:ASPERSIONs of Cmguy's anti-white bias, which are a WP:NPA violation. That is a blockable statement to make unfounded accusations of racism. Andre🚐 03:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Either block me or unfuck your unsolicited commentary. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna return to this thread (no need to continue to ping me here, Display name 99, when I said I was done I meant it), but I just wanted to say that I, at least, understood what Protonk meant in their original post. Which is why I thanked them for it a few minutes after they had submitted it. El_C 14:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I understood it, but it's also clear how a person could (in good faith!) misunderstand what Protonk wrote: in the key sentence We can look at this ... or we can boot people like this out of the fucking community, the referent of "this" is not specified either time; the sentence parses equally well with "people like this" being "people like Cmguy" (Bbb23's misinterpretation) as "people like Yopienso" (what was intended). --100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, IP. Well said. El_C 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think it is ok to complain about "anti-white bias" but consider the word "fucking" to be uncivil. There's no mention there that it matters whether the complaint is substantiated or not. Editors may make complaints of anti-white bias if they are substantiated. Protonk does not appear to agree. Again, I do not endorse Yopienso's statement. If he wants to provide support for it, that's up to him. But if they decide not to provide support for it, I agree that it would be best to withdraw it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I offered you a chance to distance yourself from this statement and you pointedly declined. /emoji shrug Protonk (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly on the locus of this thread. It's not impossible I missed it in the overly long ANI request, but I would like to ask DN99 (or especially anyone else) for prior attempts to address the broader issue with the user short of a full ANI case. The two threads I saw were specific, and the latter hindered by poor interactions. I don't believe the user is a troll. I do believe it may be possible there are some issues. Speaking with regard to the page ban by El_C to DN99, as I started reading (including a detour to the original locus) I briefly thought that they'd been hasty, at least to indef level. Reading further I had to strike my position as incorrect - as it looks well warranted, from various further details and comment within and without this thread. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• YoPienso, thanks for the ping/question, but I am not an admin. I am a contributor to the FA process. I see (at least) two editors possibly damaging an FA, one of whom is certainly exhibiting ownership and has WP:IDHT issues. There are competent editors who work at FAR who are knowledgeable of the topic and capable of writing a neutral succinct article. I see no FAR regular who doesn't agree that the article has serious problems. I offered a methodology that worked when bringing a much more controversial article (J. K. Rowling) through FAR with its star intact. That suggestion for using a collaborative method was stubbornly rejected by Dn99, who does have a most impressive block log. Those are the only factoids I can opine on; behavioral issues are dragging down a bronze star. If you were asking if I felt attacked in this thread (???), no I did not. I do see Dn99 keeps shoveling deeper, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• I was involved in both the RfC and the FAR discussions. Multiple editors have expressed the ownership style of editing DN99 has taken with the article. The discussion went on long enough with quite a bit of circling and bad faith assumptions/personal attacks so I disengaged seeing as we were not going to reach a true compromise that improved the article to the point it represented, in actuality, the verifiable sources that are out there. The process will run its course. I can say that Cmguy is not a troll. They just have a different opinion and one that is shared by many reliable sources. Even though DN99 is blocked from the article and Cmguy is not, I would encourage Cmguy to treat it as though they were. They can continue discussions on the article talk page. I elect not to go back there as I am thoroughly disgusted by DN99's position in their arguments and their bad faith description of Cmguy as well as my own and several other editors that happen to disagree with them. There are many Natives and Native descendants who edit here, quite a few that have been involved in the discussion on the talk page. All have made sound and reasoned suggestions based on reliable sources but the most outspoken have likewise been given the "biased" descriptor by DN99 and driven off the discussion. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• I've largely agreed with DN99's editorial views and concerns but I also think others are correct that even when editors don't agree we need to respect CIVIL. As the editor who, as I understand it, did a lot/the most to get the article to FA status I can understand a feeling of OWN and we shouldn't discount the efforts DN99 made to get the article to the level it was at. It's understandable they may be protective of the article. I think part of the problem may be DN99 may not be used to dealing with a contentious topic area. I mean I figured most historical topics aren't likely to have a feeling like they are contemporary politics. DN99. EL_C is a pretty darn level headed admin. With the obvious exception of any time they have told me to behave, if they are concerned it's probably best to stop and think about how you are approaching an issue. I think it's really easy to feel like the other editors are mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes... or at least they are POV pushers. But the best answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I would hope that if you can really understand why El_C was concerned they will be willing to lift the block. It certainly can be frustrating to deal with an editor who edits first and asks questions later. Still, I've found that it's best to take is slow and try to work with edits as much as possible. Else, being bullheaded and not obviously in the majority is likely to end up places like this. Springee (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I had addressed issues with Cmguy's behavior with him several times on the Jackson talk page and once on his user talk page, although admittedly not in the most respectful way. As I mentioned in my original post, Andrevan posted on his talk page asking him to clean up comments that he wrote on the talk page which were entered out of order and in between unrelated comments, and he neither responded nor did anything to fix it. ARoseWolf also criticized him for disruptive editing after he made an edit to the lead on a disputed point without engaging in discussion with other editors. ARoseWolf, my issue is not that Cmguy and I have a different opinion. It's actually been hard for me to figure out his opinion because his talk page posts are so opaque and filled with random off-topic observations and statements of fact without context. For example, he voted for "Ethnic cleansing" in the RfC despite saying that he agreed with me that the term ethnic cleansing should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph. That's just one example of not conveying opinions clearly. I'm not retaliating against him because he has certain opinions. I can barely even tell what his opinions are because of his style of discussion, which has become a major problem when he has posted so often at the talk page. But Cmguy and I have actually eventually arrived at the same conclusion, which is to reference ethnic cleansing in the final paragraph and not in the opening paragraph. My problem with Cmguy is his disruptive style of discussion. I probably disagree much more strongly with you and SandyGeorgia about how the article should look than I do with Cmguy, but I haven't made ANI threads about either of you because, while I feel that both of you are wrong about the article, I don't see any major conduct issues with you, whereas I do with Cmguy. Why does it matter if editors are Native Americans? Are their perspectives somehow more important than mine, as a white man? Lastly, when an editor posts in the RfC that they "have a deep antipathy for Andrew Jackson and curse his name" [65] and writes that the works of a reputable historian whose perspective they happen to disagree with is, among other things, "cringe-worthy fan fic" and "historical fiction" [66] (comments which, to their credit, they later admitted may have been "intemperate"), it doesn't seem wrong for me to speculate that they are editing from personal bias. I'm confused. People are saying that my approach is too combative. But then how is this okay?

Springee, thank you for your comments. But I have asked El_C for evidence of persistent disruptive behavior on the pages, and all that he provided me with was a single post which, though I have admitted was inappropriate, does not in my mind come anywhere close to justifying an indefinite block from the pages. Also, I wish to note your description of Cmguy as "an editor who edits first and asks questions later" and point out that you are second editor after myself to express concerns about Cmguy's behavior. While my own conduct is being scrutinized, his ought to be addressed as well. Display name 99 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am staying away from the Jackson article and talk page. Other editors can figure out how to remove the neutrality tags. I do not in any way wish to create any controversy among editors or disrupt the article. In the best interest of the Jackson article, I am taking an extended break from editing on the Jackson article and talk page. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerate approach, Cmguy777. When the RFC closes, if there is a conclusion that can be acted upon, then allowing some time for the dust to settle is good. If there is not, or if the dust does not settle, anyone can post to the talk page associated with the FAR on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1, and ping Nikkimaria to inquire about reinstating the FAR. When the FAR resumes, it should be possible to approach the issues in a deliberative fashion, as FAR is a "slow and steady wins the race" kind of place, without time pressure or the need for anyone to get hot under the collar. FAR allows for all voices to be heard, and works best with a collaborative spirit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want to put in a good word for Cmguy777. I thought I remembered his user name from the revision history of the Nathan Bedford Forrest article, which was a place of contention in the past, but has been pretty stable for quite a while now. I did a good bit of work on it, and Cmguy777 contributed 149 edits. I don't remember ever having a problem with any of them, and I regarded him as a benefit to the project. Peace. Carlstak (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am the primary writer of the Jackson article. I brought it to featured article status and have helped maintain it at what I believe to be a high quality ever since. During the course of this neutrality dispute, I have offered two potential compromise solutions, both of which were rejected by the loudest voices on the other side, who in essence insisted on nothing less than absolute capitulation despite the fact that they had consensus neither in their sources nor in the RfC responses for their position. Some of them, like Carlstak, made extremely incendiary statements and didn't even try to pretend like they were editing from a neutral point of view. Contrary to repeated allegations of ownership, I have been the one doing the most to try to affect a compromise, and have sacrificed significant ground in order to do so, but I have been thwarted by the intransigence of editors like ARoseWolf.

Andrevan has told me that I have to "listen and learn." I have listened, and what I have learned is that none of that matters. It doesn't matter that I made Andrew Jackson a featured article or that I have been actively trying to end the dispute through negotiation with other editors. All that matters is that I lost my temper a couple of times in dealing with what I think any experienced editor who took 5-10 minutes to seriously study their contributions to the article and talk page (Someone please tell me, has anyone actually done that yet?) would agree was a disruptive and incompetent editor. I will be punished for that, while Cmguy777, the editor who caused that disruption, will not be sanctioned, and the other editors who make incendiary comments on the talk page and obstinately refused compromises that were reflective of the results of the RfC and the sources will likewise go unreprimanded. So far, that's what I have learned from this discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99 I know this post is a wall of text, but idk the article about Andrew Jackson will retain its featured status or not if I have brought up this at WP:FAR. 36.81.245.239 (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the article on Andrew Jackson will stay featured. What matters for a featured article is not the conduct of the editors that wrote it, but the quality of the article itself. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 11:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know FAR is about reviewing the quality of the article itself. BTW, @Display name 99's posts are excessively long, reaching the borders of WP:WALLOFTEXT. 36.81.245.239 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh really IP? Nobody ever told me that. Thank you for adding so many new points to this discussion that have not been stated half a dozen times already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DN99, I don't think anyone is doubting that you've done good work, but I think your ability to work collaboratively and dispassionately needs improvement. I speak as someone who has also had to learn how to improve in that area. I don't think you are being punished. You are being temporarily partially blocked from editing to prevent disruption, but if you were to apologize and turn over a new leaf and AGF, you will be likely unblocked. The fact that you are still claiming Cmguy777 is disruptive and incompetent says that the block is merited. Andre🚐 15:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am politely requesting this noticeboard incident report be closed. I continue to be disparaged by a blocked editor DN99. I have not been editing on the Jackson article and talk page, nor do I plan to do so in the near future. I am staying away and taking an extended break from the Jackson article. Other editors can bring the Jackson article back to FA status. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, it's hard for me to see this as a temporary block. It was made indefinite when it could have easily been for a few days or a week, and no administrator has given me anything specific that I can do to have the block lifted. You say that my claim that Cmguy777 is disruptive and incompetent justifies the block. Have you studied that user's contributions to the article and the article talk page? If you haven't, I politely ask you to do so before criticizing me again for making those statements. I cited numerous examples of what I consider to be bad conduct by that user in my opening post. I have already said that some of my comments towards Cmguy777 were regrettable and inappropriate, but me being wrong sometimes does not excuse the fact that most editors here continue to ignore the unhelpful behavior by Cmguy777 as well as the battleground behavior of other editors at the Jackson page. While my behavior at the Jackson article has not always been admirable, the issues there are not all my fault. Now you'll probably say that you aren't saying that they're all my fault, but it does seem that way, as you and other editors here continue to criticize my conduct and only my conduct. Display name 99 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of admitting your bad faith assumptions of others, like myself, you double down. As I have stated and continue to state. I have left that article talk page strictly because of you, your attitude and the way you denigrate others who have a different viewpoint than your own. It's always about how you did this or did that. How you made this article a FA. It's always about how you presented a compromise and how I, or someone else, somehow thwarted it. I'm going to be as blunt as I can be when I say this, it isn't about you. It isn't about me either so remove my user name from your vocabulary please and thank you. You think my intransigent viewpoint is such a terrible thing but there is no requirement for me to alter my personal viewpoint on anything so long as I honor consensus. If you have diffs where I have not honored consensus and edited the article at any point throughout this discussion to try and force my views into the article then please present them. Otherwise I kindly ask you to stop casting aspersions about myself and others. Actually, can you even infer what my actual views are about the subject or the article itself based on what I've written or are you going to go with further bad faith assumptions as you did on the talk page? --ARoseWolf 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have never accused you of disruptive editing or editing the article without regard to consensus. That is a charge that I have made against Cmguy777, and is again, part of the reason why I made an ANI thread about him and not about you even though I disagree with you. Like you, I have not altered my viewpoint about what should be in the article, but I have been willing to give up some of my preferences based on the results of the RfC and in the interest of finding a solution to the present controversy. Your refusal to do the same is disappointing. You are right that you were not required to accept my proposed compromises (again, I did not make the ANI thread about you), but the fact that I was the one proposing them and you and other editors were the ones rejecting them demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that I am the one who has a problem with stubbornness and a refusal to collaborate with others.

Basically, if you don't accept my compromise proposals, fine. We'll wait and see how the RfC turns out. But don't turn around and say that I'm the one exhibiting ownership behavior and not working collaboratively.

You have specifically called Andrew Jackson's removal policy a "cruel action." [67] You have made reference to "human lives that were tossed to the side by Jackson's ideals." [68] Also, while I grant that this wasn't at the Jackson talk page, you have made your position abundantly clear here. So yes, I think that I have a very good idea of where you stand on the subject. That isn't my problem. I can handle differences of opinion. I'm not trying to punish you because of your position on the article's subject. My problem is with Cmguy777's unproductive edits and disruptive manner of contributing to discussion on the talk page and with me being persecuted while misconduct by other editors is ignored. My problem is with me being blocked from the article while I've been the editor most actively trying to meet in the middle to arrive at a solution. Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I also don't like that my proposed compromises, which I opened up to community comment on the talk page and did not implement after they failed to gain sufficient support, were criticized as somehow trying to circumvent consensus, or as "horse-trading deals" and an "editorial poker game". [69] [70] I resent the fact that I am now blocked indefinitely from the article that I helped bring to FA status while the editor who made these assumptions of bad faith has not been admonished. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I resent the false narrative you paint, the false assumptions you make and also the way you attempt to discredit those that have a different view than you do. Even in what you say above, which it completely true of what I said, you still claim you know my position. You don't. The option I !voted for in the RfC was a compromise from my personal views from the beginning. So your "compromises" were actually a capitulation and relegation to obscurity within an overly verbose and bloated article the widely accepted opinions of scholarly sources, nearly equal to those you claim support your position. So there you have an even further glimpse into my personal position. Again, I will abide by a well-reasoned decision once one is made at the RfC else there are other venues one may go to for a review. Until then I am done here and in that discussion and I ask that you stop with your assumptions and aspersions no matter how frustrated you may be. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a single thing in your response is a fair representation of what I said. I have just said that I can handle differences of opinion, and I made no assumptions in my post. I just pointed out the things that you said. If that makes you angry, I don't care. You have already said repeatedly that many reliable sources call the event a genocide and that calling it ethnic cleansing was a compromise, so that I already knew that you probably considered it a genocide. Your response here just confirms that. I know exactly what your views are now. I'm just struggling to figure out what your point is. How can I assume what your views are when you tell me? Display name 99 (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading this, hey - if people criticize you for throwing around accusations, don't just say "If that pisses you off, whatever". It's rude. Plus, they're trying to be civil - if you want to contribute to this discussion properly, maybe don't take people pointing out what you do wrong as a personal attack? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WannurSyafiqah74, when another editor makes false and defaming comments about me and all I do is point out facts about what that editor has said, it's a totally acceptable response. Display name 99 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I've seen your talk page. Dude, if people are gonna tell you you're acting in a bad manner, then they have every right to tell you what you did wrong, especially since you are blocked from editing. As I said, don't take their criticism as a "personal attack". You also need to better yourself, and not see our criticism as "defaming" comments.

How many times do I have to tell you this? If you're not going to improve, then I'm just writing down all of this for nothing. Just listen to what people have to say? It's not hard! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless you're gonna continue to say "well, they're incorrect and want to defame me"... you do realize not taking criticism doesn't help, right? Like, growing as a person would benefit Wikipedia. Stop dismissing users' comments toward you, here and at your talk page.

The only thing worth being mad about is if someone said "you suck", "you're stupid lol" or something. I'm only stepping in because I don't want you to continue the exact sake behavior you had for the last two years. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, you should be wary when people say you attack other editors. It's okay to point out on who did wrong, but I found out the context. You really should just not be petty over stuff like this, if people - including the user you targeted - are going to reason with you about it.

Just do better. Don't attack people and dismiss criticism towards you as "defaming" - just grow out of this defensive persona and actually rethink your behavior. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Jr8825, I am responding to your ping on the Andrew Jackson talk page. I am blocked from that page as well as the article itself per the above thread. However, because you pinged me, I want to say that I have no issue with your proposed version. Because they are quotes, "common man" and "corrupt aristocracy" need citations. Look at the "Philosophy" section of the article. There are citations there for those quotes. Please include those if you are going to add your proposed version. I am unable to discuss them further due to not being able to edit the article talk page.

WannurSyafiqah74, you're telling me that I should stop seeing criticisms of my own behavior as attacks but also that I should stop attacking other editors. How are these editors' criticisms of me not attacks and my behavior towards them is? Please explain yourself. ARoseWolf's criticisms of me were unfair and vindictive. He accused me, without evidence, of assuming that he had a certain viewpoint about the subject of the article, and asked me whether I even knew what his view was. I denied having an issue with his contributions to the article and the talk page because of his views, but cited several examples of him openly broadcasting his position to show that I could, in fact, tell what his belief was. He then, again without citing evidence, accused me of making false assumptions and casting aspersions on other editors. That is not acceptable behavior. Like most of the other editors who have posted here, you continue to scrutinize my behavior while ignoring disruptive, inflammatory, and pugnacious behavior by other editors. I have acknowledged saying some ill-advised things, but as I have said above to other editors, so long as you continue to blame me for all of the problems at the article and ignore the bad behavior by other contributors, I cannot take you seriously. Also as I said above, I have listened to what others have said, and I have found their criticisms highly hypocritical and lacking in sound judgement. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies for pinging you. I've read your comment, but if commenting on that page here could be a breach your ban you may wish to strike your above comment out of caution (I'm not saying it is, I do not know the details). Jr8825 • Talk 22:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not to worry. You didn't know. I struck the comment as a precaution. Display name 99 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any administrators who can close this report that seems to have gotten sidetracked? Has the matter been settled? Thanks. I am staying away from the Jackson article for a prolonged period of time while letting other editors settle the neutrality issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

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