For your Mohseen Moosa work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your consistent and helpful work at WP:COIN. C F A 💬 03:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad12, thank you for your excellent work figuring out the socking, and the longer history. I noticed that you left a blank comment to my question re: UPE or garden variety COI. I'd very much like to know your thoughts on this. After I started investigating some of the shenanigans from the older SPI from years ago, I am wondering if it's not persistent UPE. Netherzone (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your excellent work at COIN and for working with others to clean up promotional content to keep the encyclopedia promo and spam free. Netherzone (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my contribution? It satisfies all the guide-lines... this is unfair, there is no reason to remove it AlgebraIsLife (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have previously made the reasons for this clear in my edit summaries and on the talk page. The material in question has now also been recently removed by an administrator and had previously also been removed by another user, MrOllie. The WP:CONSENSUS is therefore against you.

MrOllie issued you with a warning earlier today and the administrator issued you with a final warning about half an hour ago. If you add the material to the article again it appears that you will be blocked from Wikipedia altogether. I would suggest that you give up this campaign before it ends badly for you. Axad12 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? A threat? Shame on all of you! Don't worry, I'll delete my account, because this community doesn't deserve such a contribution. AlgebraIsLife (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad- thanks for your messsage, I removed topics from over a decade back. I note you mentioned that I deleted the talk page comments, if I may ask what is the best way to archive them? Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure as I've never felt the need to do so. I don't see any problem in allowing old talk page discussions to remain in place. Deleting them seems to demonstrate a lack of respect for other users. Please note that while users can delete material from their own talk pages, they are not allowed to do so from article talk pages. Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More important to focus on the fact that this user has only made 50 edits (and only 23 in mainspace), than that they registered 14 years ago. They're a newcomer. If we take it in good faith that they didn't see the talk page warnings I gave them a few days ago, I don't think there's anything to complain about right now. Ignorance of the law is an excuse, and they haven't attempted to add back the references I removed.

(If Einstein did return from the dead and naively attempted to add some of his papers as footnotes and create a sandbox draft about his concept album, not realising that he wasn't allowed to do that, I really hope that we'd put him right on that and hope to keep him on board, rather than drive him - and anyone he talks to about his experience with Wikipedia - away.) Belbury (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I do take your point.

To be honest, though, I felt that the user's intervention only demonstrated his strong tendency for self-promotion. This user has apparently written over 100 works, but if no non-conflicted member of the human race has had the inclination to add them to the encyclopaedia then it cannot really be being hurt by their omission.

And how can he not have seen the talk page warnings if he made a COI edit request the day after receiving your note suggesting (amongst other things) that he do just that? Axad12 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. They posted Why are you reverting my minor edit on my talk page after I'd already posted four warnings on theirs, so may have missed or misunderstood the notifications.

I also get where you're coming from and do very much agree that from their edit history they're probably just here to add content about themselves. But the WP:AGF approach is to let it play out, that despite the self-promotion the community might decide - fully bearing the COI in mind - that they have a point about this one article benefitting from this one reference. (I know nothing about the subject myself, it just ended up on my watchlist for some reason.)

If their request is politely rejected and shown to be unnecessary, they'd hopefully accept that and stop. But if they feel like the rejection is (even just partly) because Wikipedia has unfairly classed them as some terrible thing that they're not, they might decide they can ignore the ruling and escalate it to some other tactic or noticeboard. WP:AGF and WP:BITE is as much about protecting ourselves from needless kickback, as well as to other editors downstream. Belbury (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the user has always been devoted solely to self-promotion. I really don't think it would serve any purpose to encourage them in that regard.

I believe that I've tried to explain the relevant points of policy throughout the thread (primarily for the user's benefit although he was essentially absent until recently). Unfortunately he seems to have viewed that discussion as a mildly amusing waste of his time, on the basis that he is an eminent academic and should be allowed to do whatever he pleases and other Wikipedians should just do whatever he wants.

I have to say that I strongly disagree with his estimation of the situation and I believe his intervention (in the form that he made it) was exceptionally ill-advised.

I can see that there is an argument at this point that it would be better if a decline decision was to be relayed by you rather than me, is that something that you would be prepared to take on? Axad12 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I know nothing about the subject! I couldn't tell you whether this was the crowbarring of a laughably minor paper, or something of genuine use and relevance. The article just fell onto my watchlist somehow.

I'd just leave it for someone else to resolve, however long that might take. Might be worth putting a {{Collapse top}} around our side conversation about edit requests so that whoever closes the request can navigate the discussion more easily, if you felt like doing that. Belbury (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My current impression is that the user's most recent contribution has left no option but for the request to be declined. Axad12 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belbury, just a note to say that I've now suggested (at the relevant talk page) a compromise solution which will hopefully satisfy all parties. Thank you for your contributions here, which have had a significant impact on my thoughts on the general situation.

Following our rather brief previous interaction (on the situation in relation to Noor Stores) you are someone whose opinions I have held in very high regard and your contributions here and elsewhere are much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Noor was actually a case that had some of that needless kickback - they quickly saw me as an enemy and went as far as mildly doxxing a long-standing editor that they'd decided I was a sockpuppet of. In retrospect I should have leaned back a bit and waited for a wider pool of other editors to respond, rather than replying quickly to their points. Belbury (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right. The best piece of free advice that I ever received on WP (from a very kind-hearted soul) was that it's best not to engage with thread subjects directly and instead to refer to them only in the 3rd person (to avoid over-personalisation and back and forth quickfire argument). This also results in (hopefully) a greater pool of respondents.

Unfortunately that all fell out of the other ear some while ago, but your words above have reminded me that it should be somewhere near the top of my personal checklist while operating here.

At the very least I should have something like [I take a different view, but I'll wait to hear what other contributors have to say] as an available cut and paste option at all times.

Grateful if you could pitch in briefly on the compromise suggestion as I'm hoping to get that all resolved sooner rather than later.

Thank you again, Axad12 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for "compromise" here, to be honest! Either it's a useful footnote or further reading link that people agree improves the article, or it's not.

If your position is that you think it's actually okay as a reference but you don't want to be seen to be giving Michael.greenacre the green light to add their papers to other articles, I don't think that needs to be framed as a "compromise". Just accept the request and emphasise that they are still required to follow WP:COI and make edit requests in future. That the acceptance is of that one edit to that one article, rather than an approval of the paper for all future purposes.

It's also not really clear to me whether if any future similar requests are made they will be assessed solely against the contents of the relevant Wikipedia policies is you saying that those requests would each be viewed neutrally on their own merits, or dismissed out of hand under WP:SELFCITE. So presumably even less clear as guidance to Michael.greenacre! Belbury (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my intention (in the 2nd part of the suggestion) was that he needed to diversify his activity somewhat to allay any further suggestions of SELFCITE/CITESPAM etc, in which case policy objections to further inclusions would no longer exist. That was, to my mind, the best outcome that could arise.

Apologies if that was not clear. Axad12 (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad12 – I hope you are well!

Thank you for taking a look at the A. Gary Klesch article and stripping out much of the unsourced information. I wanted to ask if you would be happy to look at some recommended updates I have made at Talk: A. Gary Klesch aimed at improving the second half of the article and updating it with the latest figures and a more neutral tone.

Any feedback you are able to share and improvements you can make would be appreciated.

Thank you Rosalyn15 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad12,

Would you please take review the following suggested edits for Dafna Lemish: T

Thank you! TheBlueHeronofHopewell

• In the second paragraph, replace: "She serves as the Dean of the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts, at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale." and "Lemish is Associate Dean for Programs at Rutgers University in New Jersey." with the accurate statement: "She is the Interim Dean and Distinguished Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at the Rutgers School of Communication and Information in New Brunswick, New Jersey."[1]
• References
  1. ^ Lemish, Dafna. "Dafna Lemish to Lead the School of Communication and Information as Interim Dean". Rutgers School of Communication and Information. Retrieved July 30, 2024.

TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now hopefully resolved at the relevant article talk page. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12, would you help guide me in my request for a small number of changes to Dafna Lemish's page? These few requests are only meant to update the current page. Thank you for your help! TheBlueHeronofHopewell

Edits to update the Biography section, paragraph two:

In 2010, while on sabbatical at the Center for Media and Child Health at Harvard University^[7], she accepted a position as Chair of the Department of Radio, Television, and Digital Media at Southern Illinois University, later becoming the Dean of the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts.^[8] In 2016, she moved to New Jersey to serve as an Associate Dean for Programs at the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University and was promoted to Distinguished Professor in 2019. In July 2022, Lemish assumed leadership of the Rutgers School of Communication and Information as interim dean until July 2025. ^[9]

References:

[7]^. https://news.siu.edu/2014/05/050814par14064.php

[8] Lemish, Dafna. "Achenbach, Lemish chosen to lead colleges". Southern Illinois University. Retrieved December 6, 2024.

[9] Lemish, Dafna. "Dafna Lemish to Lead the School of Communication and Information as Interim Dean". Rutgers School of Communication and Information. Retrieved December 6, 2024.

Edits to update the Awards and Recognition section:

Rutgers Board of Trustees Award for Excellence in Research, 2020 ^[10]

Distinguished Professor at Rutgers University, 2019 ^[11]

The Charles Klotzer International Media Literacy Award, The Gateway Media Literacy Partners, 2015 ^[12]

References:

[10] Lemish, Dafna. "2019-2020 Faculty Year-End Excellence Award Recipients". Rutgers University Academic Affairs. Retrieved December 6, 2024.

[11] Lemish, Dafna. "Dafna Lemish Promoted to Distinguished Professor". Rutgers School of Communication and Information. Retrieved December 6, 2024.

[12] https://news.siu.edu/accomplishments/1510.php TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added the COI edit template to your request at the Dafna Lemish talk page. This will result in the request appearing in the relevant volunteer queue.

It looks as though you've taken on board my advice so hopefully there should be no issue with the request being implemented.

Hopefully this helps, Axad12 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll be so excited it this all goes through. I appreciate all your help, Axad12! TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encoded  Talk 💬 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your collapse and clutter[1], it's not a clean way to edit wikipedia and its becoming a disruptive time sink for your fellow editors (how many discussions are there now about it? Two? Three?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had discussed [2] with the user who reverted me, and they said they weren't troubled one way or the other if I re-collapsed the material. I had support in that regard from another user (user:GreenLipstickLesbian), so I went ahead and re-collapsed.

I'm not really sure how that can be described as a disruptive time sink. As far as I can see I've behaved here in an entirely appropriate manner.

However, I'm sure that you and I are on the same side re: our thoughts on the COI situation and both want to see it resolved appropriately.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the future don't recollapse until you actually have consensus to do so (which means opening a discussion on the article talk page, not on a user talk page), Graywalls wasn't going to keep arguing with you but they weren't agreeing with you, thats key. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axad12, I came here to ask you to please stop collapsing sections of the COIN report, but I see a thread has already been added. I think the entire discussion needs to be present, in order and visible, in the event that an admin will actually eventually read it and take action. To my way of thinking about community here, I believe that All the voices and comments are relevant. Without all this content, nuance is lost, and it shows that the collapsing editor is giving more weight to certain parts of the argument, even if they stray somewhat.

Unfortunately, it seems like there are not any admins yet who find the thread compelling enough to take action, or perhaps there is hesitation because there was previously an ArbCom re: Smatprt (on a Shakespeare issue) not on the current issue. I have never had good luck at COIN, and as an admin once said, the COIN noticeboard "has no teeth", and advised to use ANI instead for long-term COI Promo or UPE. I am asking that you undo all the collapsed sections, please. Thanks in advance, Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I shall do so shortly. Axad12 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, just a note re: "COIN has no teeth"...

The basic problem, as I'm sure you know, is that admins do not regularly patrol COIN. Over 50% of the blocks that have been dispensed at COIN over the last 2 months were obtained because I approached admins directly and asked them to take action (which, on the great majority of occasions, they did). I started doing this after discussing the "COIN has no teeth" comment with the admin who made the comment, who then encouraged me to adopt this approach.

The obvious off-wiki evidence re: Smatprt is way above the threshold that I've found that an admin will dispense a block if requested to take a look at a thread. I've been trying to approach an admin to request action re: Smatprt over the last few days but have never found any admins that I know who happen to be online at the same time as me.

That is basically the way to circumvent the "COIN has no teeth" problem. Since you live in a timezone which is probably more conducive to locating admins who will assist, I'd encourage you to adopt a similar approach when hoping to get an admin to take action (re: Smatprt or any similar blatant case). Simply hoping that a passing admin will block a user tends to result in discussions where there is clear evidence of UPE/COI ending up being archived without action being taken - which is frustrating for all of us.

So, that is just my personal take on this matter - but it is an approach which has resulted in a number of very obvious COI/UPE users being blocked where otherwise that may not have occurred. Axad12 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you said somewhere, I don't think the block was exclusively due to the COI thread. Go look at his contributions and the "ticket #". That's the date on email I sent to en.ew paid email... a whole month ago. Anyways, just letting you know that email to them does get read.. eventually. I did a follow-up email to them with link to the COI/N, but I don't know if that was a factor in their decision. Graywalls (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also note that a recent COI regular, Saqib, seems to have been blocked based on evidence provided behind closed doors. The exact reason for his block seems rather unclear, either it was to do with a case of outing he had been dealing with at COIN, or perhaps one of his many embittered opponents on his talk page had managed to make something stick. He seemed like a well intentioned user to me.

On a completely unrelated note, you may be interested in this thread [3], where Smatprt has been asking for clarification on whether or not he counts as paid. I'd be grateful for your input there on whether you believe the current policy WP:PAID could do with some shoring up in how it is worded.

Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should register your suspicions with an SPI, which might be the tool needed to get to the bottom of this. I'm sure you are able to disregard the hectoring tone. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I don't know how to set up an SPI. Could you do the honours? Axad12 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Twinkle it does it all for you. You just need to give it your best shot. The clerks will do the rest. It's worth deploying Twinkle to achieve this. Twinkle adds ARV to your top personal Menu bar

Plus you have off wiki evidence. I know that you will keep it off wiki, but they might expose themselves, whcih would be undesirable. There will be a way to submit that 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can ID the accounts which should be part of this I will do it if you ask me to again(!), but do take a look first. If I set it up I will ping you to it for further comments. It needs to be as concise and evidence based as possible 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't have Twinkle. I am almost entirely computer illiterate, hence my inability to set up SPIs. If you would set up the SPI I would appreciate it.

Re: outing, that is far from my intention (and I believe I've been quite restrained in not naming a particular article, not even in asking the user to deny any COI to it). Axad12 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, though I would prefer to teach you to fish rather than catch a fish for you. It truly needs no computer literacy. You add Twinkle as a gadget in your user preferences. Obviously you will need to lodge the off wiki evidence yourself because I may not see under the rules here. And equally obviously it may not go inside the SPI. I can mention that it exists and ask in the SPI how to submit it.

Please list without pinging the account names you wish included. and the basis of what I need to enter to start the SPI. I will then ping you in, and probably David Epstein to add further evidence and commentary o the appropriate place 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the SPI would need to mention the Evadeluge & Redabyss1 accounts and to say that the end users of these accounts were (or 'are believed to have been') previously the co-users of a shared account, but now have separate accounts which are extensively used to edit articles which off-wiki evidence suggests are about each other (and other subjects related to each other). The degree of association, and crossover between subjects edited, makes it plausible that the accounts both remain joint efforts, but are co-ordinated by a single user who is responsible for the Wikipedia editing.

There is another account from 2022 (ParseWrap) which is very likely a sockpuppet of Redabyss1, but that is stale.

I'm not sure if that clarifies the situation. There seem to be a number of plausible possibilities in terms of what is going on, but none of them are good. Unfortunately I am feeling rather under the weather, and I'm not very good at describing complex but unclear situations in a simple way at the best of times. It may be best to link to the relevant thread at COIN. Hopefully these notes help to some degree. Axad12 (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at each of them and file it. There is no deadline. I can wait until your feelings of malaise has cleared.

And your descriptions are as clear as mine are, so worry not. Let me know when you are feeling up to commenting after I file it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have just posted something relevant at COIN re: similarities. Axad12 (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly relevant. I think I can work with this. Should I still delay for you to feel well? I would like to be courteous and do that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No no, please... you go ahead.

Of the various different possibilities it seems quite clear that the most likely is the sockpuppetry theory.

The fact that someone seems to be operating 2 accounts, ostensibly relating to 2 discrete individuals and using them to write "each other's" wiki articles in an attempt to obscure the COI is obviously quite serious.

The discovery of the Redabyss1 account clarified the whole situation. Axad12 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filed as well as I am able. Please do add your thoughts as well as you are able (whcih is very well indeed) to the "Comments by other users" section. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so, hopefully covering all of the main points.

Thank you for filing the SPI, I am very grateful for your assistance.

In an ideal world I would be better at computers and systems, but realistically my strengths are instead in investigation.

Ultimately teamwork is of course vital in getting good results. Axad12 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do take a look at Twinkle, though. It is ludicrously easy to use. It will let you perform the final steps with ease.

You may need to monitor the SPI because I think more information will be requested. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there was me thinking I had already said too much!

No problem, I will monitor the SPI and add anything else that should happen to be requested. Thanks again, Axad12 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to send the offline information? I have no idea, I'm afraid 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be sent to an email address. I would have no means of doing that without compromising my own anonymity, so it is something I do not do.

My feeling is that I investigate stuff, I present it as best as I can at the relevant noticeboard, hopefully always within the bounds of what is permitted, and then either an admin will take action or not.

I'm reluctant to get further involved, partly because I'm frequently very disappointed by the behaviour of other users on Wikipedia - to the point that I consider giving it up literally on a daily basis. Some days (including over the last 24 hours) on an hourly basis.

On a happier note: I've just noted that the SPI result was that the users are 'technically indistinguishable'. Axad12 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might choose a disposable email address, a free one? A great many Wikipedians use them

The outcome is wholly useful, yes. Thank you for your investigations. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the accused will contribute to the SPI. There appears no longer to be any requirement to notify a party to the discussion, but I think it does no harm at all that you have, albeit indirectly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably my view differing from you view. This Flood one is just on my self defined age boundary. I believe it needs to go, but it is borderline too old for a PROD (for me), and potentially 'deserves' AfD. That doesn't mean I will decline your PORD. All it means is that I am sharing my thinking with you.

Certainly it is an AfD candidate if someone contests the PROD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Is that for Joe Flood or Tom Flood? Axad12 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

potentially both! I'll look!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Tom. Joe is the borderline one. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently going through as many of the articles as I can where those 2 accounts had significant input. Most of the material is unsourced, self-sourced, etc. The notability and encyclopaedic value of what they were adding is pretty much always highly dubious. A great deal of material has been removed from Marilla North, are they even borderline notable? Axad12 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing item was aggravating. I would not have noticed that so early myself. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had only checked to see if the user had been blocked yet.

Upon checking in again on the user's contribution history I see that the user has been on quite a crusade (although I've not looked into the exact details just yet). Axad12 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having got the gist of the user's spree in recent hours I see that it has quite rightly resulted in them being threatened with being blocked (not before time, although if they had already been blocked it would have saved a lot of trouble).

The main (currently unreverted) impact seems to have been the removal of the Tom Flood PROD, which I am sure is anti-procedural given the COI. Can it now simply be restored or not? It is the middle of the night where I am so I am reluctant to take any action right now. Indeed, I am reluctant to get involved as I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak.

I had intended to embark on the clean-up operation after the user had been blocked, to prevent this kind of COI interference. However, I eventually felt that I couldn't let the delay in a block being issued prevent me from starting. Axad12 (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Tom Flood PROD, and was then informed by an admin that that was anti-procedural. Fortunately that admin contact did ultimately result in the two accounts being blocked.

If you feel like putting an AfD into effect now the prod has been removed then I would view it as a personal favour. Axad12 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TF might well go to AfD, but the prize means that is likely to be kept. It appears to be a notable prize.

Please don't allow anyone else's behaviour to control your own. Wikipedia is a very weird place, and is only as hostile as we allow it to be. I hope you stay. I understand if you do not.

PRODS, once challenged, may not be restored. It's one of those rule things, meant to protect us all from PROD wars.

Many earlier opportunities to block were missed. This sometimes happens when a wall of bombast is erected by the misbehaving editor. It takes the determination of editors such as you to see it through to the end. WP:ROPE always allows them to find a way to become blocked.

Thank you for your hard work.

And, yes, their behaviour was akin to the schoolyard bully, once caught out, with spiteful little pokes. I think bullies should be taken down at every opportunity, but not using their tools. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This is for your determination in finding evidence for a recent difficult editor's eventual block. I know this was a challenging time for you. I want you to know how much I appreciate the work we did together. Thank you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truly great work of late. I suspect many editors have noticed Axad12. We can all suffer from burnout and disillusionment. Once you start to notice COI and paid editing, you begin to realise how widespread it is here. Please come back soon. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support.

It seems I continue to encounter (elsewhere) difficult and offensive editors. Some people unfortunately seem to have problems identifying the activity of a good faith volunteer who spent many hours working on COI issues.

Axad12 (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axad12 I burned out a few years ago, and took a long break. My real life commitments forced it, which was a good thing, because, just before my personal circumstances changed, I was standing for election to Arbcom - am unusual thing for a non admin - and recognised just after the start of the election period that I would be completely overcommitted and unable to do any part of my life justice.

Taking a break is a strong thing to do. It takes more strength to start a break than to carry on, and still more to maintain the break until you are ready to return. So take that break with a good heart. When you are ready to return, do not come back with all guns blazing. Drop in and out until you are truly happy with returning.

I hope you will return. However, other people's hopes for your return are not the right reason to do it too early. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, as soon as I mention going on wikibreak, people pop up from all over to yank my chain, revert me, accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, etc. I don't think I've ever had such a disagreeable few days. Axad12 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is people for you. DNFTT is appropriate when yoiu feel goaded, poked and prodded by those who cannot disagree peacefully.

Nothing here is urgent. Sometimes it feels as if it is, but truly it is not. Any article can be reverted to any prior version, at some future point. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! We've bumped into each other a few times doing COI edit requests.

Not going to template you because you know this already but I really think you should consider taking a break from editing Jim Gamble for now. OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately it is very difficult to engage in constructive discussion with an editor who only pops up once every month and a half (and when he does, primarily to throw aspersions and personal attacks). I'm not at all surprised that he continued to edit war 8 minutes after he was warned to stop. Axad12 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is just silly. I simply return the page to the original position prior to you reverting and unnecessarily removing sourced information. Stop reverting and just keep it to the talk page until it has been fully resolved. Thank you. --MartyTheArty (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I offered a further concession at the article talk page and you doubled down on the personal attacks at your own talk page. So, normal service is resumed... Axad12 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there comes a point (which I often sail straight past, with all flags flying, colours nailed to my mast) when we need to say "I cannot influence this further," say it only to ourselves (or perhaps to editors we chose to trust), say it with confidence, and leave it to others from that point on.

I doubt the DRN suggestion will fly. However, the editor is now aware that others are interested in the article. Sometimes, but I will bet not here, that is all which is needed.

I value your work highly, very highly. I do not value your stressing yourself over things you cannot control. Not that I am religious at all, but the words of a short famous prayer are very useful. I have no idea whether you have a faith, nor a deity, yet I commend the words to you.

The other editor believes themselves to be correct. You are certain that you are correct. I am making no judgement either way, forgive me for that, I just chosoe to be involved in process not substance here. My belief is that the only solution lies outside your, and their hands. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct on everything there (except perhaps that my real concern is over the other editor's methods rather than the content issue, which is a rather lame one).

Speaking more generally, I've been around the block enough times to know that most Wikipedia content disputes are ultimately unsolvable and that they often turn into meta arguments about the interpretation (or intentional misinterpretation) of policy. The actual content issue usually gets jettisoned at a fairly early stage as undefeatable wikilawyering trolls fight each other to a standstill over abstract points of policy.

Then on the other hand there are those who prefer to fight their content battles simply by resorting to personal attacks about their opponents.

The moral of the story is clearly to stay away from content arguments because they are a waste of life itself. Ditto for various other set piece Wikipedia arguments, such as the well known one where both parties accuse each other of breaching WP:AGF.

Over recent days I've continued to think about how I can carry on with my work here, and I continue to take on board your valuable input.

My feeling at the moment is that it would probably be best for me to contribute primarily at COIN (where I'm probably most valuable) and to leave content clean up to others after the event. Also to avoid dealing with declared COI users by giving the COI edit request queue a wide berth.

Thank you for your continued kindness and advice. I'm trying to resolve a number of wiki-related issues and had intended to do so away from Wikipedia, but recent events have proved quite instructive in terms of working towards a solution. Axad12 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that you feel my words are of some service to you.

My own mantra for survival here, let alone success (though I must have had some!) is to think quietly about what, if anything, I might do to make a poor situation better. Then I choose whether to do it. I try to act politely, and calmly, consistently, and even pedantically.

I will, politely, hold up a mirror to an editor over their unpleasing behaviour, and do so assertively, sometimes relentlessly, and always quoting policy. However, no part of me ever gets drawn into that type of discussion. As the converse of that I am not yet good enough at thanking folk for good behaviours.

This mantra has served to keep me as balanced mentally as I wish to be, assuming I am at all balanced!

If that approach works for you, and it may not, I commend it to you. You do much of it already. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you go through my earliest contributions you will see I cut my teeth on the talk pages surrounding conspiracy theories over the collapse of the World Trade Centre. Content disputes were thrashed out and solved. It truly is possible. I did not always get it right, but I tried to act as a person who did not stand for either side of a dispute "being correct".

That was a baptism of fire, and rather good fun. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Council_of_Fashion_Designers_of_America_/_promotional_edits

I replied to you in the link above and then the other user Crash0out responded because I guess they get notifications if you sign up for an account. It seems if I reply there I just get accused again of somehow being linked to them so I am replying to you here but if anyone checks my history they can also see my edits.

They quoted your comment "both accounts use the fairly uncommon formulation “@ Graywalls” at the start of their posts (despite apparently both being inexperienced users)." So no, I saw a message that you had to @ a user for them to be notified and also saw that someone had replied with already. I have used other apps before. Also as stated, I have edited wikipedia over the years, maybe over a decade. I never claimed to not have experience

You comment "then responded here (despite not having been notified of this discussion)" No there was a link somewhere. I got a message box that appeared when I went to my page or you can also see where someone edits when you click on someone's contributions.

I have only commented on my edits and not the dispute. I have been dragged into a fight between two other people. If you are questioning my agenda, then I have to say I don't know what anyone's agenda is. I made my edits with care and effort, absolutely nothing objectionable at all and nothing to do with this dispute with two others. I do not deserve all these allegations, once false claim after another. I just need this to stop. Please just STOP. I am not involved. -16:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC) 104.195.221.169 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) commenting here when the matter is at WP:COIN, while understandable, is useless. Discussions of that gravitas should not be separated. I make no comment on the substance of your message. Please make your justification at COIN or recognise it is unlikely to have any action taken on it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the messages above. My concern, as stated at COIN, was that when two single purpose accounts start editing an article, one through a registered account and one through multiple IP addresses, and both start commenting at COIN, and one of them claims that the opinions of those 2 users represents a consensus then there is room for doubt on whether it is a genuine consensus. The reason for that is simply because that kind of behaviour is witnessed on Wikipedia on a daily basis with individuals trying to manipulate consensus by (ab)using multiple accounts.

Another user at COIN appears to have agreed with me that there is room for concern and a further user has started a sockpuppet investigation, which will get to the bottom of matters by running various checks to determine whether or not there are any links between the accounts. That is all entirely appropriate and will determine if everything is legit or if there is sockpuppetry. If what you (IP user) say is correct then you have nothing to fear from that process.

Hopefully this note clarifies matters. Axad12 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there absolutely nothing that can be done as an alternative to deleting? Bearian (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. Ever since the article was created 2.5 years ago it has been almost entirely (95%) the project of a now blocked user with an established COI on the subject. If the article gets a reprieve no one will be contributing to its improvement because no one is going to even be aware that the article exists, as comparable articles do not exist for the same concept in other nations. Axad12 (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Zefr (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marillajoe, but have run out of time today to check whether the additions are personal opinion or cited. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to hear from you.

Well spotted. I've now reverted the edit in question on the basis of the deceptive edit summary.

I agree it was always likely that the socks would return to the scene of the crime, but whether that is what this is, I'm not sure.

The text that was being changed (generally rather negative to Hewett) was presumably originally added by Evadeluge. Or, if it wasn't, it would be surprising that she didn't take the opportunity to change it in any of her previous 81 edits to that article (made over the course of 30 months).

But, that said, the editor is clearly pushing a POV - so who knows? Axad12 (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They will eventually have to break cover when they inevitably start to add citations to the North/Flood authored book about Hewett.

The book was published in July '24 - so it's one of the enduring mysteries that that had not occurred prior to the blocks.

I removed a single mention, here [4], a fortnight ago (on the basis that it was an instance of self-citation) - but the book must include plenty of material that an inclusionist hagiographer would love to include in the article. Axad12 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	A coin for you!
	I admire your dedication in this area, and I was particularly impressed by the patience you showed with the CrashOut situation. In honour of your work, here's a coin for you! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I've had a long and rather frustrating day on Wikipedia today and am just about to log off. I am truly very grateful to you for your appreciation.

I'm still not sure exactly what was going on with the whole CrashOut thing. I found myself in the odd situation of being both the person who spotted the apparent sockpuppetry and the person who gave them extended notes on avoiding promotional text. It didn't make a huge amount of sense at the time. But it seems they have recently been unblocked, so hopefully I made the right call.

Thank you again. Axad12 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Axad12. I don't believe we have crossed paths before. I just wanted to commend you for your wise words at this talk page discussion of a user who seems determined to pull the house down over his ears. I feel we are moved by a common spirit in trying to help such people. I fear he won't take your good advice, but I hope I'm wrong. It's so curious, when someone who clearly has the intelligence to argue their view and to refer (superficially, at least) to policy buzzwords, so utterly fails to get it and seems unable to hear or perhaps process what others are telling him for his own good. Sad, really. Well, I feel he has been given good advice now by multiple people, and every opportunity to back off from the precipice and save himself, but I guess you can't force someone to listen who seems determined to commit suicide by admin, and it seems only a matter of time—probably a very short time—before he succeeds. Nevertheless, thanks for trying. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words above. I share your concerns.

In Wikipedia discussions I think it’s a healthy attitude to simply say (whether outwardly or inwardly) “My opinion is [X] and if that ends up being part of the consensus, great, but if it doesn’t, no problem”.

Similarly, I think it’s healthy to be so unattached to the outcome that one can sometimes just immediately unsubscribe from a discussion without concern for how it ends up being resolved.

By comparison, staking out a patch of ground on which to argue against all comers is just exceptionally unhealthy.

I say all of the above despite being, on occasion, a bloody-minded so-and-so. Only relatively rarely have I been involved in serious argument on Wikipedia. But when I have, it would always have been a great time saver (and spared a great deal of aggro) if I'd instead just said “I stand by my earlier comment but would be grateful to hear the views of others”. Because let’s be honest, consensus is generally decided by who has the most support, not by who has the most arguments.

In the case in point, I assume that the blocked user is perhaps more familiar with the kind of open-ended freeform arguments that occur in forum threads at other sites – rather than the efficient consensus mechanism that we use on Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., I note in another thread above that you avowed your computer illiteracy in regards to some technical point with another user, and I just wanted to offer you my services, if it would ever help, as someone who is very computer literate, well-informed about how things work around here, and has a willingness and ability to introduce or clarify technical issues to non-technical folks; so feel free to ping me anytime. Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, I will certainly bear it in mind. Axad12 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are trying to do there, but I do think that mentioning the private event is notable because of the relevance of Charles Koch and Stand Together, as otherwise I would not agree. Also, the link to Shogan's blog I would say is fine because it is among other sources. That's just my view on it. If you wish to discuss it further, rather than getting into an edit war, I'd be fine with doing that here or on Talk:Colleen Joy Shogan, which ever you think is more appropriate. Historyday01 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you start a new thread at the talk page and I will respond in due course. Axad12 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I will shortly create a new thread at the talk page and copy you in. Axad12 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question about this edit. On the one hand, I suppose the subject can call himself whatever he wants. On the other hand, where it gets tricky is: a) the article is largely written by the subject, and b) in the edit summary, he mentions the source as being a presentation he delivered. Alas, the information is unverifiable and remains uncited. So, how do we deal with something like that? — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch with me. I don't recall having seen this article before but I am happy to help.

As you say, all info on Wikipedia must be verifiable and reliably sourced to independent published sources. Thus the claim that you point to is inadmissible and should be removed.

I also note that the user has a clear conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly but instead using the COI edit request process as per WP:COI.

His user name may also be a username violation.

I will try to resolve some of these issues.

P.S.: Incidentally how did you find out about me to get in touch (as I hopefully have a relatively low profile on Wikipedia)? Axad12 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the following action:

1) Removed the edit you pointed to above (for the reasons pointed out in the edit summary here [5]).

2) Removed a section from the article which was entirely self-sourced, here [6].

3) Placed the relevant COI editing template on the user's talkpage (here [7]), pointing out that they should be using the COI edit request procedure and not editing the article directly themselves.

4) Reported the username as a violation of WP:REALNAME. This may result in the account being blocked until it is renamed (although the policing of this point by admins seems to me sometimes rather inconsistent, which is probably due to some misunderstanding on my part).

With regard to point 2, I would encourage you to remove any self-sourcing and promotionalism from the article with impunity, plus any material in the article which is sourced only to self-sourced material such as interviews.

If the user continues to edit their own article (or articles for their relatives, or anything else to which they have a COI, such as their own films) then please feel free to report the matter at WP:COIN. The user's behaviour thus far has been understandable, as many editors are unaware of the policies in relation to COI, autobiography, etc. However, to continue such behaviour after the policy has been notified is a serious breach of policies and guidelines.

Hopefully the above notes are of assistance. If I can be of any further help then please feel free to contact me. Axad12 (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed an amount of unsourced/self-sourced and/or promotional material from the articles for 2 of the subject's films, and added COI templates for the articles that the user created as part of his family history project. See my contribution history for details.

It looks to me as though the user has spent much of his time here promoting himself and his films. To be honest this sort of activity brings Wikipedia into disrepute as readers are entitled to expect that material is neutral non-promotional material, not installed by someone with a very blatant conflcit of interest.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to investigate further into this. Hopefully the notes above may be of assistance to you if you wish to removed further material from the relevant articles.

If he continues in his COI editing then taking the matter to WP:COIN will be the best course of action. Axad12 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your prompt action. I found out about you from the COIN noticeboard: I preferred to open a one-on-one discussion as a preliminary. Regards, Biruitorul ^Talk 07:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Axad12, Hello Biruitorul,

thank you for the discussion. While I do understand your general concern, all the edits I did in the article are entirely truthful, including adding my real, full legal name that does include the title (in Germany, titles can legally be part of the last name, which is the case here). What you perceived as a "claim" was actually a mention at a scientific conference where I presented my PhD research on Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski, where I disclosed my full legal name to the attendees - most of the times so far, I did not publicly use the title or my middle name, but they are part of my full legal name, and it feels strange to have that removed without giving me an opportunity to clarify. I felt after the research of my ancestors, it made sense to disclose my full name publicly, though I understand if the source was not clear enough. How could I disclose it in a way to be more clear?

I am wondering why much information was removed from the infobox and article that was truthful and also publicly documented, like my date of birth, alma mater and so on, that I feel is not "promotional" at all and would not be removed normally from infoboxes. I hope the contents of articles and facts mentioned therein get discussed independent from the author.

Of course, I understand the general issue with self-written articles that may contain untrue and promotional contents, which is why I am particularly careful the way I write. I aim to write as neutral as possible, quoting many sources, and why I am transparent about who I am, using my name even as a user name. I take great care to write with the same diligence as if the article were not related to me.

I am currently writing my PhD dissertation in history about Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski, and I am working on several academic articles about Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski, so I am well aware about potential issues - and so far, I believe I never wrote anything that, without knowing who the author was, would even potentially be perceived as problematic. I use many sources, just as if I were not related. Particularly, my research on Demeter and Constantin von Tuschinski, including the wikipedia articles I wrote, has been perceived very positively by several academics at conferences. I am very motivated to share information I have, particularly, since in post-1947 Romania much information about North Bukovina and its history was not discussed. I hope this clarifies several things.

Biruitorul, I feel there are a lot of assumptions on your part about me and my motivations, given the very subjective tone of your message at the deletion page for Paul Tuschinski. You are more than welcome to discuss with me, I would look forward to it - I see and appreciate your passion for Romanian history, and I believe there might be a lot of misunderstandings that we could clear up, since we seem to share similar interests and I appreciate your work here.

Kind regards, Alexander ATuschinski (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Dear Axad12, dear Biruitorul,

I just responded also on Biruitorul's Talk page, as I hope it will also help achieve some mutual understanding. Sending best wishes, Alexander ATuschinski (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander,

The issues here are essentially as follows:

1) Editors should not be editing articles where they have a conflict of interest (e.g. about themselves, their relatives, their projects or employers, etc.). Instead they should be requesting that edits be made via the COI edit request process, as detailed here WP:COI. Thus, the great majority of the edits you have made to Wikipedia have been contrary to policies and guidelines.

2) All material must be sourced to published reliable sources, as per WP:V and WP:RS. Much of the material I deleted was entirely unsourced. It isn't sufficient for you to say that the material is true, it has to be demonstrably true by reference to published material.

3) Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.

4) Wikipedia is not a platform for original research, as per WP:OR, so while other individuals may have been impressed by your family history research the appropriate place for it to be published is in book form (or similar) rather than it being posted onto Wikipedia.

Hopefully the above points clarify some of the issues here, but I would point you primarily to point (1) - editors should not make edits to articles where they have a conflict of interest. If you make any further edits to those sort of articles you will be reported with a view to your account being blocked by an administrator. Instead you must use the COI edit request process, whereby a non-conflicted editor will check the requested edits for reasonability.

Your co-operation here would be appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12

thank you for taking the time to clarify and reply. I will think about it, and there are two points I noticed right now.

- A lot of information (date of birth, parents' name, alma mater) is available online in various reliable publications. You have told me not to edit the article again - though, the information exists, I could quickly name sources.

- I hope this is a misunderstanding: Do I understand correctly that you say I would be blocked from now on if I edit any article that you perceive I might have a COI in, which from what I see includes articles about my great-grandfather and the legal system in Bukovina until 1940? If so, basically, I would be unable to write anything about the topic of my PhD dissertation - not because I wrote anything wrong or bad on wikipedia, but only because of who I am, as my ancestor almost 100 years ago was involved. To be honest, this is quite shocking, and I hope it is a misunderstanding. What you write about "Original Research" - all the sources are named in the articles about my ancestors, and they are mostly available online, I am quoting and linking them. If any such research is forbidden, hardly any edit could be made to any even more modern article where people quote from press sources.

I had planned to next write well-sourced articles about the Cernauti Court of Appeal, including again digitizing and uploading pictures I had found after long research, and about some notable members of the Cernauti interwar community. This is very valuable information not only for Wikipedia. The idea of blocking me for further creating and editing such articles after I spent months doing historical research to do (what I perceive) articles of good quality, just because of who my ancestors were, seems, frankly, shocking. What would my COI be if I write about the legal system that ceased to exist in that way in 1940? If I write about my great-grandfather who retired in 1938 and who passed away decades before I was born? If I had commited "vandalism", by creating bad and untrue articles, I would understand. But this way, it feels unwarranted, and I hope for a misunderstanding. I feel if I were not related, likely, no problem would even perceive with any of these articles.

If I get blocked for writing about history that my ancestors participated in, I will have to cease writing articles about the Romanian history I know well - simply because of who I am. And that would be quite a dire, and to me, hard to believe result after months of work I did out of idealism, and I hope it is a misunderstanding.

Kind regards, Alexander ATuschinski (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you cannot make edits to articles where you have a conflict of interest. So, yes, it is simply because of who you are - if you wish to express it that way.

Nobody is allowed to edit articles where they have a conflict of interest, so it isn't just you who is affected.

Similarly, no one is allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform on which to post their original research.

The only way that you can request edits to the relevant articles is by using the COI edit request process, as outlined in WP:COI.

I have suggested that the articles on your family members be referred to AfD for deletion, this is because I do not believe that the subjects are notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (i.e. as per the general notability guidelines, WP:GNG).

In relation to the potential for you being blocked. I want to be quite clear so there is no misunderstanding. You have made several hundred edits in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines. However, until very recently you weren't aware of the relevant guidelines and were acting in good faith. However, now that you are aware of the relevant guidelines, as quoted in my various posts today) if you continue editing in breach of those guidelines you will be acting in bad faith. If that happens I will report your account with a view to getting it blocked. I personally do not have the authority to block you, but I will report you at the relevant noticeboard where administrators will consider the evidence. Many users in a similar position have been blocked, indeed many users who have done perhaps only 10% of what you have done have been blocked. Therefore it would be safe for you to assume that if you continue to make COI edits then your account will almost certainly be blocked.

The way for you to avoid being blocked is for you to restrict yourself only to using the COI edit request process.

Also, I would advise you against creating articles for the Cernauti Court of Appeal if the purpose is mainly to give coverage of your ancestors. I noted you did something similar in the past when you posted the complete set of awards given in 2012, the purpose of which edit was quite transparent (it was because you won an award that year).

Hopefully your situation is now quite clear and you will take my advice and respect the relevant guidelines going forwards.

Your co-operation would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Axad12,

Thank you for your feedback. First of all, I know how bad "promotional content" that reads like ads can be for Wikipedia, and I respect very much your work and effort to keep that off of this platform. I can only imagine you have to look through many, many articles daily that are blatant marketing or advertising. However, I believe in this instance, your efforts are mis-directed. @Biruitorul:, I believe you shall also read this statement of mine, since I believe you have the best intentions, as well.

Axad 12, I looked over the COI rules, and nowhere I understood such as you imply, which would prevent me from writing about anything related to me including ancestors and anything they were involved in. I understand as per COI rules it's important to disclose who I am and my relation (I always do, it's even in my user name!), and that my edits adhere to a strictly neutral style (they do). From my understanding of the rules, you'd have no point to suggest "blocking" my account for any of my edits, and I respectfully ask you to only use such announcements when truly appropriate. I'm not certain if the COI tags on Demeter's and Constantin's pages are warranted, given the very academic nature of the articles and that both of them passed away before I was born. I believe I never wrote any "promotional content" - saying that I added (true) film festival awards for a year when one of my films won there could hardly be considered "promotional". (I did not have time to review that particular edit you refer to, but if I wrote it a while ago, I certainly completed Wikipedia with true information for that year. You could then expand that page with additional years and awards if you like.) Beside, I did many edits to articles not directly related to me or ancestors, and never once were there any issues I'm aware of.

Regarding the article about me Alexander Tuschinski:

My motivation was to make this article more complete with many public soures, writing from a neutral position the same way as if I was writing about someone else. I briefly looked over your deletions, and I see you also deleted parts about my filmmaking style that were added way before my edits and which quoted from third parties like film festival reactions and an interview. If such deletions about style and reception improve any article about an artist is debatable, to say at least.

A lot of the basic information you removed in the article Alexander Tuschinski was quoted from sources named in the article, but I did not put footnotes in intro and infobox as I felt the standard was to just reference that info when it appears later on in the article body itself. I do not write unsourced claims on Wikipedia, and therefore, your statement "It isn't sufficient for you to say that the material is true, it has to be demonstrably true by reference to published material." was out of place. From my understanding of the COI rules, I could simply put these true basic infos right back without breaking any rules, maybe add additional footnotes to make it clear, and would be within all rules. The threat of being blocked for any edit, no matter how true or relevant, is to my understanding disproportionate to the perceived "issue" of providing verifiably true basic information while declaring who you are.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest restoring the information you deleted from the infobox and intro, and for this, I am naming some further, redundant sources that are not currently present in the article: Place/year of birth and alma maters are quoted on the offical site of Filmschau Baden-Württemberg, the major film festival in this German federal state - there is lots of press and TV coverage about this event.[8]. Date of birth can be found, for example, here - a German cinema website that was created and maintained entirely without my input.[9] Parents' names can be found in an article from Siebenbürgische Zeitung that is already quoted on the wikipedia page.[www.siebenbuerger.de/zeitung/artikel/kultur/25394-vom-czernowitzer-staatsanwalt-zum.html]. My full legal name "Alexander Konstantin Ritter von Tuschinski" will be quoted in more press articles in the near future as I intend using it more in public, and if you feel it is not sufficiently sourced now, I can put it in with a footnote once it's published more: There is no COI rule that prevents me from writing my actual, full legal name in an article about me if I quote a source.

Regarding articles about Constantin and Demeter von Tuschinski:

You write: "I have suggested that the articles on your family members be referred to AfD for deletion (...) because I do not believe that the subjects are notable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia". I disagree strongly with your assessment, and it would have some bizarre effects if it became Wikipedia policy that likely, you do no intend either. I'm certain that a discussion for deletion would come to the same conclusion. Small examples from the pages:

Constantin Ritter von Tuschinski in the 1960s-80s published in both of the two most major, widely circulated and heavily curated German-language Romanian cultural magazines of the era, Volk und Kultur and Neue Literatur. Romanian press wrote about his plays. Your blanket assessment that none of that is "notable" would mean that suddenly, many authors who published there and shaped the German-language Romanian 1960s-80s cultural scene would be stripped of their notability, which would (seemingly at random) suddenly exclude a huge part of majorly published Romanian German-language culture from Wikipedia. I plan at some point to create pages for those magazines and other authors who published there - are they all suddenly not notable, despite the strict regulations for publishing in Socialist Romania? Can you provide sources to support your assessment? I'm currently researching the magazine "Volk und Kultur" and its archive for the second volume of Constantin's collected works, and did have some conversations with writers in Romania. I strongly believe many other users would disagree with your assessment, too.

Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski was the highest-ranking Romanian state official in interwar Romanian Cernauti, and he was constantly present in public sources until 1940. The Wikipedia article names only some of the approx. 2000 press articles I was able to locate. If he is not considered notable, then, by that logic, no state officials and public figures of equal or lower ranks from interwar Cernauti/Bukovina or other major Romanian cities/regions would be notable enough for Wikipedia. By extension, most people named here would have to be deleted: [Category:20th-century_Romanian_judges]. Axad12, I do not believe this to be your goal? I believe we both aim to expand knowledge on Wikipedia, and I see you spend a lot of time and effort to ensure the quality of the content. Here, I think there might have been some misunderstandings, and I hope my message was able to clear them up.

Axad12, I believe I understand your motivation in keeping advertising off of Wikipedia, which is an honorable cause and I respect your work in keeping Wikipedia free of such content. However, concerning my articles and edits, as I believe to have demonstrated, it seems to be mis-directed.

Kind regards,

Alexander ATuschinski (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, if you continue to edit the relevant articles I will report you and you will very likely be blocked. I have already explained in great detail how your activity breaches several policies.

It is a very straightforward matter that users with a conflict of interest should use the COI edit request process rather than editing the articles directly and that there is no place for original research on Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also ask you to stop posting on my talk page. I see that you are capable of constructing long self-serving posts explaining why you think what you are doing is okay, but you are wrong.

Also, with regard to your 2 family history projects, I would suggest that you keep your arguments against deletion for if or when the articles are referred to AfD. Trying to discuss those issues at this location, and at this time, is pointless.

Similarly, if you wish to add info to an article the way to do that is by a COI edit request at the relevant article talk page, not by requesting it here. The important issue to note is that it doesn't matter whether you believe your edits are neutral and non-promotional. Since you have a conflict of interest that issue needs to be examined by a neutral and non-conflicted editor before being implemented. That is how Wikipedia works and why the COI edit request procedure exists. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works then please find another website in which to promote yourself, your films, and your family history projects. Axad12 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demeter Ritter von Tuschinski. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, I have responded accordingly. (Also, while writing, I assume the AfD will be concluded soon so it may be time for to consider whether or not you wish to vote).

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It is indeed gratifying to see nefarious works of self-promotion crumbling into dust, and sanity prevailing. A very Merry Christmas to you, too! Biruitorul ^Talk 10:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mansfield, Connecticut. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As previously discussed and supported, references to addresses and train stations keep the official name, Storrs-Mansfield. UConnIPUser (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. You are currently on the verge of being site blocked. Axad12 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your revert was and is inappropriate. You did not provide ANY source to back up your revert, nor explain it with any actual detail. Furthermore, it is maintaining incorrect information - so this message that the edits you made were unconstructive are accurate and will stand. UConnIPUser (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you just got site blocked. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Axad12 is entirely in the clear, here. Placement of this template by UConnIPUser (talk · contribs) was invalid, and they have been indeffed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Jonathanhusky (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Omonuk and Draft:N-O are making my antennae twitch. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Unless I'm missing something the article was introduced into mainspace by an SPA after being turned down many times at AfC. The best way forward there is surely, as always, AfD.

Not sure why the draft was created (presumably another attempt at getting an article published on the same subject?).

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be interested so see the result of an SPI on users CarbonTrouble and Clare Nassanga. They appear to have an identical SPA agenda and to have edited (generally speaking) over different timespans. In my experience that very often indicates sockpuppetry when the accounts are working on obscure subject matter. Axad12 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How do you feel about enabling Twinkle in your gadgets and starting an SPI? It's truly easy 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I'll give some consideration to. Will let you know tomorrow. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may beat you to it. I've hit AfD and am looking at socks. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clare Nassanga. Yes, it truly is that easy. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so with regard to Twinkle I have a question. It may be a really stupid question based on a false assumption, but bear with me.

My understanding is that Twinkle is something that I need to install, and I always associate that word with taking up space on my computer (a commodity which is currently at a premium).

Am I correct here or is Twinkle just something that I somehow switch on within Wikipedia and has nothing to do with my computer's storage space?

No doubt you will deduce from the question the extreme limitations on my understanding of the subject under discussion.

Your guidance here would thus be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is "deployed" rather than installed. Wikipedia gadgets and scripts exist on Wilipedis servers and take up no space on your local "client" (computer). By ticking the box, and possible refreshing your browser, we "switch it on" which means that you need no technical expertise at all, and it takes up no space on your own machine.

Not a stupid question at all. It made me think how best to explain it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. I will have a look at WP:TWINKLE tomorrow and hopefully get that set up. Axad12 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything new, start with things you understand well, and expand your horizons when comfortable. Everything is reasonably intuitive. Your user sandbox is a good thing to practice on for article based things. User based things such as warnings are easy, but you may wish to delay those until you are happy with the user interface. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A recommendation is Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc for a quiet and reflective reading session 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas (whatever your religion or lack thereof).

How did you get on? I recognise that you like to take things at a pace that allows you to discover new things in a controlled manner. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim,

Unfortunately in recent weeks I've been really involved in 2 very time consuming cases which required a lot of work (namely this one [10] and a multifaceted investigation involving this promotional dross [11], these ridiculous allegations against me [12], this AfD [13] and the modern manifestation of this extensive promo activity [14]).

Both of these cases ultimately met with very satisfying positive conclusions but they've left me with little time left to address Twinkle - although it is still my intention to do so in the near future, Christmas allowing.

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and my thanks as always for your continued advice and help. Axad12 (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens. All I can say is that The barking of the dogs shows that you are riding on horseback!" And no, I don't quite know what that means!

You must be dong something right in order to attract accusations. Please try hard to separate "business" from personal issues. I know you do try hard.

Congratulations on your diligence and dedication.

I am always here to offer help. Or to be asked for help. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Axad12 -- I've declined this one; I think there are minor claims that are independent of the Cambridge Film Festival, but I'm predominantly motivated by the fact that this article was created in 2014 and its notability has already been debated on the talk page with an established user appearing satisfied with added sourcing -- I'd interpret that as the article has been sufficiently assimilated that speedy deletion is not appropriate. You might try redirecting to Cambridge Film Festival -- I wouldn't object. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was just coming back to ETA, on a closer look at the edit history it was prodded back in 2014, so is definitely not A7able. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could I ask your advice on the Alexander Tuschinski article (where G11 was recently declined)? The article is clearly highly problematic from a number of standpoints, all of which relate to the underlying COI.

When you mention the possibility of the article being stubbed, do you mean reducing it to the current lede? Axad12 (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read German but it really would depend on what reliable independent sources support; there seem to be some at least in the list, and I'd be surprised if this were deleted at AfD. Which is the other editor you are suggesting is associated with Tuschinski? -- because generally I'd suggest just rolling back to the version that hasn't been substantively edited by the COI editor(s). Espresso Addict (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the account mentioned in this rather old COIN report [15], Mike300578.

As you can see, the extent of the promotionalism on Tuschinski's behalf has been extreme, and the subject continues to create and edit articles about family members etc.

The Mike(etc) account created the Alexander Tuschinski article. That account and the subject's own account are responsible for 90% of the current article text. Axad12 (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that does make it more problematic. There does seem to be a kernel of a notable film maker in there somewhere, hidden under all the verbiage. I've got to go offline now, but I'll take another look at it tomorrow. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this article, it was dire. I've hacked some stuff out and Netherzone has also been doing good work on it. I've formally warned ATuschinski not to edit Alexander Tuschinski. If you notice them doing so directly again (rather than requesting edits on the talk page), feel free to drop me a note if I'm active and I'll try to work out how to block them from that article (not used partial block yet); I think that's a great deal more-problematic behaviour than writing about one's borderline notable, and in any case long-dead forebears. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help here.

There is a thread [16] further up on my talk page where the user seems to have extreme difficulty grasping the concept that he shouldn't be editing articles where he has a COI. Hopefully he will accept that information from you.

I see that yourself and Netherzone have recently done much good work on the Alexander Tuschinski article. I will continue to hack away at it as and when I have the time (and will also make similar removals to the other promotional articles about the user's film output).

Clearly the user's activity is the sort of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute.

Thanks again, Axad12 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict,

Just a brief note to say that ATuschinski has recently reported me [17] to an admin re: various policy compliant removals of material from Tuschinski-related articles. I have responded (after the complaint was mentioned to me by a 3rd party) but I wondered if you might contribute a brief note to the discussion as it does seem to me that I have been unfairly criticised behind my back for good faith edits.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axad, thanks for all your good work on Wikipedia, it does not go unnoticed! I don't know if you use scripts during editing, but some of them have really saved me some time. I thought you might be interested in this one (written by an admin) that helps with cleaning up promo and coi fluffery: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DetectPromo.js. If you want to install it, there should be an "Install" link to automatically add it (it will create a subpage for .js scripts. I also use these two that flag unreliable sources User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter, and User:Headbomb/unreliable. Cheers, Netherzone (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]