Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

I think admins should take a look on User:Hotwiki's editing behavior, especially towards other editors. I stumbled upon their edit-war with User:FrostFleece regarding GMA Network shows supposed airing of their shows in 4k format and in 5.1 surround sound. Since the Philippines had yet to broadcast in full digital and most of the major TV stations are still airing in analog, FrostFleece's edits are valid. Even the programs that the network upload in their official YouTube channel are not in 4k format or 5.1 surround sound. Hotwiki reverted back FrostFleece's edits (see here, here and here) and posted a fourth level warning on FrostFleece's talk page. When ForstFleece replied on Hotwiki's talk page explaining their edits, Hotwiki replied aggressively and even threaten FrostFleece that they will report them to administrators (see Picture and audio format of LIVE broadcasts on GMA Network).

I myself have encountered Hotwiki's behavior whenever I edit the

Replying to reinforce this topic regarding User:Hotwiki who only greeted me with unfriendly remarks and a shower of warnings.

This all began when I started editing on the Eat Bulaga! article as I noticed the particular detail standing out. Just recently, a reversion of User:Blakegripling_ph's revision on the Eat Bulaga! article reveals User:Hotwiki's intent on maintaining their edit with their summary highlighted here:

"According to who? GMA shows are in Netflix and Netflix are required to be in 4K resolution. Again you have no proof that there are NO 4K cameras being usedwhen GMA Network already stated in their pressrelease many years ago about going 4k. Go look it up before you revert 1 more time"

It stems from this article here (which is frequently cited by User:Hotwiki) describing how GMA Network is investing to upgrade their programs to full 4K format. However, this user is greatly misinformed since it doesn't state here which shows are produced in 4K; nowhere in the article also mentions anything about 5.1 surround sound. This user also cannot provide additional references and clearly made assumptions from the said news article.

Furthermore to refute their claim, TAPE Inc.(Eat Bulaga! producer) is a separate entity and a long-time blocktimer on GMA Network (see news article) and does not produce the show for Netflix; similar to the aforementioned news programs: 24 Oras and Saksi.

I would also like to share that this issue is also spread out across most GMA drama series articles with User:Hotwiki behind changing the parameters of multiple shows also without references. Any efforts on improving these pages are considered futile due to this user's aggressive and persistent revision. FrostFleece (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ownership on other pages such Twice singles discography insisting that The Feels is not a single of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 over the objections of other editors. Hotwiki needs to respect consensus when it does not go their way. See [1] and [2]. Lightoil (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Lightoil: The issue with Twice was discussed in the talk page of Twice singles discography. The evidence is there and I responded in a very civil way. You could have expressed your opinion in that talk page and you didn't. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was written in my talk page "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly. Your talk page shows it all". How is that not a personal attack? I did discuss to User:FrostFleece in a civil way, about posting a reference, which he/she failed to do so. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WayKurat: yes, I do revert unreferenced edits immediately as those articles are in my watchlist. Is there a problem with that? Seeing your edit history, you do the same, though most of your reverts are unexplained which are seen in your contributions page[3]. User:FrostFleece made changes to at least five Wikipedia articles without posting a reference, and I checked the user's edit history, the user did not post any reference to all of his/her edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expounding that statement:

1. "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly." - I simply described your frequent threats to block me from editing as seen on my talk page.
2. "Your talk page shows it all." - describing your disposition when dealing with other editors.

Taking offense is not the same as a personal attack and I am sorry if those statements did offend you, but let it be known I have never meant it in any way a form as an attack on you.

It's simple. Provide and present references that proves the GMA content are in 4K and 5.1 sound. Please stop relying on that godforsaken article that does not back your claim at all.

I admit, it is tough finding a source that specifically details the show or channel specifications, but that information is readily available publicly since GMA Network is broadcasted across the country. I have no place to lie about it here on Wikipedia.

Please also do your due diligence instead of keeping on harassing editors for a reference you so much crave about.

Do your part too, @Hotwiki. FrostFleece (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hotwiki: Yes, I revert edits, but the edits I revert are mostly obvious vandalism. FrostFleece already provided an explanation on why they did the revisions, and still you acted aggressive towards them. I also didn't saw any personal attacks against you on their reply.

Also, have you watched GMA Network's over-the-air broadcasts or even watch their shows on YouTube? The signal is obviously not in HD, let alone, in 4k. It's only on 16:9 480p. The source that you keep on bringing up only mentions that GMA is capable of producing shows in 4k. Only a few stations in Metro Manila airs content in HD. -WayKurat (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Network only started broadcasting their shows in widescreen in broadcast television, this year, but their shows have been filmed with wide-screen ratio since 2014 and this is evident from online videos (YouTube/Netflix/Viu) that they uploaded throughout the years. Recent shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon, First Lady and First Lady are indeed filmed with 4K cameras, as 4K resolution is a standard requirement for content being streamed in Netflix[4] and GMA shows are available for streaming in Netflix. Shows being streamed in Netflix also uses 5.1 surround sound, not stereo. A 2019 article from GMA Network which was posted in Saksi, Eat Bulaga and several articles backed up the 4k claim. So please, provide a reliable source when you make an edit and claim that GMA doesn't use 4k cameras and 5.1 stereo for their shows. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they are not using 4k capable cameras. I'm telling you that they are NOT broadcasting in 4k and in 5.1 surround sound. Just because some of their shows are on Netflix does not mean that ALL of their shows are recorded on what format you are claiming. Heck, Eat Bulaga, Saksi and 24 Oras are not even in Netflix. You are just assuming them. I'm throwing the question back to you. Do you have a primary source that says that all of their shows are being shown over-the-air in 4k 5.1 surround sound? -WayKurat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source @WayKurat:? If we are gonna drastically change audio format and picture format for 5 shows, we should able to back up that with a reliable source which @FrostFleece: failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop asking me and other editors on our sources. It's obvious that you only based your assumptions on that GMA article and you won't let anyone remove it unless they provide their "sources". That's the problem on your editing behavior, you remove or revert back the edits of other editors if they edit your work but when questioned on this, you keep on asking "where is your source?". This is borderline

WP:OWN. -WayKurat (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Changing content without adding a reliable source is a valid reason to revert someone's edit. Now since you and @FrostFleece: failed to provide a reference, how about you both just let it go? TheHotwiki (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the attitude, @Hotwiki, after all these replies.

We are going around in circles and instead of trying to help finding common ground, you are simply telling us to let it go? Do you mean let it go and let you keep your edits? Sure, but please provide correct sources too if you are all about the references.

@WayKurat and I have provided and explained in sheer detail but you choose to stick with your logic and fail to see our point. We are not wasting our time and efforts here for no reason. So please, don't tell us to just "let it go." Would you like it if I were to tell you the same?

I invite you to please reread our counter-arguments once more and you are very much welcome to do so. This would be my final response until someone steps in to help resolve this issue. Adios for now and all the best for this discussion. FrostFleece (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just gonna let this slide one bit this time. This attitude of yours has been going on for years now. Look what have you done to the

owning articles and let other editors edit them. -WayKurat (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You are over-generalizing these information! I have a phone right now that can also shoot in 4K but that doesn't mean everything I shoot is 4K. Your NETFLIX logic is flawed.

We are not contesting the fact that GMA can shoot 4K format right now. The problem is that not all shows are released in 4K and 5.1. The keyword here is released. Just because Netflix requires 4K cameras, it doesn't mean all GMA shows are released in 4K. If you go to Netflix right now, you'll be surprised to see that the specifications for shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon is still in 1080p, and in Stereo! (linked here) Technically, no 4K or 5.1 release yet, unless you provide hardcore references.

Yes, GMA Network does have 4K cameras (see article here) and can produce in 5.1 surround sound format (see Voltes V Legacy cinematic version plans here,) but you are assuming that for all shows. FrostFleece (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  Phil Bridger: There is a reference for the 4k resolution claim which was already added to this article Saksi. Looking at the access date of the reference, its been in the article since 2021. As for surround sound, FrostFleece (talk · contribs) just posted a link above that shows of GMA Network utilizes 5.1 surround sound.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That is precisely a link that shows that the producer is capable of making programs in this format, not that any particular show utilises this.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Here's 3 more articles that says the network in discussion uses 4K cameras.[5][6][7] The first link is for the network's Public Affairs department. The second link specifically mentioned a 2020 drama series. These articles are from 2020. I just don't understand the need to cherry pick which shows are using "4k resolution camera/4k picture format", when these articles exists. Meanwhile there are still no reference, that certain shows are only in lower resolution.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter what sources might say about the network's capabilities when they don't say that these capabilities are being used for particular programs. And we don't need a reference to simply leave out the format when there is no such source.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

It's more likely that these shows aren't broadcasting in 4k at all, but mainly in 1080i or 1080p. Hotwiki, you would easily be able to find out what format a show broadcasts through a technical tool which would show its true format, and the only regular 4k broadcasts are usually special events, not a Filipino lunchtime variety show being broadcast every weekday (and often to an audience that has absolutely no need for 4k). Also, just because it's being recorded on 4k equipment doesn't mean it goes out in 4k; more likely it's being downscaled to a regular 1080i/p system for graphics and network output like we do in the United States for sports broadcasts). Netflix doesn't have a 4k requirement, and you need sourcing to show it, which just doesn't exist. So it's time to stop, now. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OWN. Can someone please review the article first and issue warnings to Hotwiki for edit warring? -WayKurat (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Chiming in again after some statements.

  @WayKurat, I'm afraid I have to back @Hotwiki on this one upon review of the diffs but I think there are some information worth reviewing. I agree that some parts are way too trivial but I believe can be rewritten to be deemed an acceptable entry. The article has a talk page and I invite all of us concerned to discuss further from there.

  But still, @Hotwiki, though I appreciate and respect your contributions and your incredibly proactive editing, we need to always have a healthy discussion instead of swooping in with the reverts and dealing with us and other editors in an unfriendly manner. What's the use of citation needed or other tags and discussion pages if you always take matters on your hands? It's good to be bold to delete some information, as said in the article, but not overly bold that discourages other contributors from providing insights. FrostFleece (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @WayKurat: you are using this opportunity as a way to revert back a version of Saksi (an article that used to have plenty of unreferenced claims and trivial stuff), that has been removed years ago. How is "graphics change" important to the article? Trivial uncited information like Catchphrases is unnecessary. Myself removing uncited and trivial content IS NOT me owning the article as if its my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

  An IP user with 6 edits, reverted an old version from 2020 in this article, Saksi.[8] No one is still adding sources to the reverted back uncited claims. Could the administrators look into this? The article is now (once again) full of uncited and trivial claims because @WayKurat: claimed that the article used to be a mess when the uncited and trivial claims were removed, yet for years it was removed just fine. TheHotwiki (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you should try looking into the TV Patrol article. It contains uncited and trivial claims similar on what you have removed in the Saksi article. Instead of helping out in finding sources in the History/Overview section, you just removed a lot of content, some of them were written way back in 2007, skipping the show's history from 2004 to 2011. You also added that "Interim anchors" section, which only uses video clips from GMA News' official YouTube channel as primary source. The videos are not even about the subject being cited, it's just news clips when the interim anchor delivers the news. How can you call that a proper source? Also, with comments like this to other editors, no wonder no one bothers to revert your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In other news, I discovered something. @Hotwiki, you have plenty of edits on the page of The Wall Philippines but you haven't questioned once regarding the audio format of the show nor asked for references. You did not even try to change it. Why, @Hotwiki?

  I was surprised that the show was stated in its actual audio format, although yes, it is "unreferenced" as you would love to put it; though, I am not debating the credibility of the parameter but instead the seemingly bias approach towards other articles and editors. Although you might say you have missed it, sure; but I highly doubt it since you are pretty much eagle-eyed and active on GMA-related articles. FrostFleece (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing way too much edit warring (across multiple articles) and way too little talk page discussion in general, although by now it appears to have all subsided. If Hotwiki, WayKurat, and FrostFleece can find an article talk page or content noticeboard to settle the format dispute (or alternatively
  WP:AGF and avoid edit warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  User:Rosguill, Hotwiki has been warned several times about edit warring and this behavior since at least 2017 (I checked their User talk Archives 11 and 12). I'm not sure adding any warnings above that would solve anything. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They were blocked for the 2017 incident but I'm not seeing any problems since then--the warning from 2018 seems to have been posted tendentiously. oh wait there are other warnings from that year too. Hm. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's their block log. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you check their user talk page, there are instances that other users are complaining

  owning articles. Maybe admins can check this as well as this has been going on since 2017. It just really escalated with this incident involving User:FrostFleece. -WayKurat (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think part of my initial reluctance to impose a block is due to the fact that I find WayKurat's edit-warring and

  WP:POINT-y reversion to a diff from 2020 at Saksi to be equally sanction worthy (and yes, they have a similar history of 5+-year-old blocks for edit warring). In the absence of an ongoing edit war, I don't think blocking WayKurat will accomplish anything, but am loathe to reward brinksmanship at ANI. I think that the separate concern of Hotwiki veering into OR (vis-a-vis video formats) is more singularly sanctionable, but I'd like to see a response from Hotwiki regarding that charge and what they would intend to do moving forward before taking action as an admin . That having been said, failure to address this concern (specifically addressing the points made in Nate's comment and Phil Bridger's last comment) is problematic, so a sanction will be warranted if Hotwiki does not respond to it. Pinging Hotwiki, per that last sentence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Rosguill: I already stopped edit warring/arguing about 4K once Phil Bridger/Nate both commented about the picture format. And you can see in the history page of the articles,that I didn't restore it to 4K, as I already dropped this issue right after their comment. I blanked the audio format per the suggestion of Phil Bridger. I can work well with other editors as I have never resorted to personal attacks especially in this issue. This issue escalated due to my reluctance of the articles being backed up with references (when there was none when things were being changed/removed). I'm sorry for all the inconvenience I made. TheHotwiki (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll reiterate my support for closing this with a warning: it seems clear from the above responses that disruption related to the immediate dispute between Hotwiki, FrostFleece, and others is at an end and Hotwiki is backing away from their prior problematic editing. A formal warning that further disruption will result in a block should be all that is needed as a preventative measure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with a formal warning and closing this thread per

  WP:STICK. Hopefully this will no longer be an issue in the future but in case edit warring becomes an issue again, I suggest a stronger intervention. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WIth all due respect to Hotwiki and their contributions, It is unlikely that this editor is will be open to settle matters in talk pages or even recognize insights from other editors. I am also unsure how I (or other editors) can arrive at a conclusion with Hotwiki independently in the future without the intervention of administrators.

  To summarize again this user's actions:

  - Misuse of

  WP:PRIMARY

  across multiple articles, (where plenty are still left unedited due to their behavior.)

  - Exhibiting WP:OWN and high-maintenance behaviors.

  - Engaging in

  WP:POINT

  .

  - Lack of

  WP:AGF, (ex. presenting a barrage of warnings on my talk page

  .)

  As a newcomer, I apologize for my oversight on the guidelines on edit-warring on which I ceased from the moment this case was discussed and eventually raised here. All I wanted was a civil discussion from the start.

  Once again, this will be my final response, simply finalizing my points to help the admins concerned and to also help avoid prolonging this any further.

  With thanks, FrostFleece (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • I already dropped this issue the other day. The audio format for the Tv show articles were blanked and @FrostFleece: thanked my edits for it, as seen in my notifications. I didn't know I am up for a "block", when I already stopped edit warring days ago.TheHotwiki (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 (edits since Feb 26)

Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross.

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

• Special:Contributions/2A00:F29:2B0:2D1:0:0:0:0/64 (edits from Feb 3 to Feb 25, 2023)

Select examples: [31] [32] [33] [34]

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

They have resumed their chronic disruptive editing at:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:3440:541B:D660:915E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• unsourced change to the date of a film's release: [35] and [36]

• 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C:4C6B:972C:AA6E:D98D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs [37]

Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More unsourced edits [38] [39] [40] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:7C73:22C7:463:3B9D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing unsourced edits contrary to

WP:FILMOGRAPHY: [41]

from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:F464:2B6B:B9C6:D6E1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

How about a short-term block on 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42 ?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More from today [42] [43] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:947E:8D44:FE21:A173 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More: [44] [45] [46] [47] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:C84A:F2F4:52A:56B1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Note that edits in this range picked up minutes after another IP that geolocates to the same area was notified of an ANI discussion about the same disruptive editing behavior. [48]. That IP 91.73.33.144 was subsequently blocked: [49].

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Both myself and Lard Almighty have been editing the this page Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally, Lard Almighty had reverted an edit and allowed a BLP disputed name to stay [here], which was undone in [this edit].

After this, there have been several issues that have happened involving Lard and their subsequent edits.

After their edit was removed, the subsequent user who added it received the following message on their talk page

Lard created a talk page [here], with the first post being

Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

On a prior BLP discussion [located here], Lard had stated the following.

We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service.
— User: Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

However, in the talk page discussion, this is contradictory to the following quote

Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I started [a discussion] on the Dispute Resolution board to try to see if maybe I was misunderstanding consensus being made, and Lard said

The reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it. I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

, but this is contradictory to the statement on [this edit where they say that sexual assault was not the cause of death.

When I noted that it didn't involve paedophilia since it has never been stated in a single RS, this was the reply

It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the revert comment, that is somewhat correct, but I believe it's skewed by the fact that the original talk page statement says not to name the suspect as the very first comment, which most people would more than likely read the first post and assume it's what should be followed without second guessing it. The name has been added 28 times, 13 of those being Anonymous edits, with 14 being registered users. One of those additions is mine, and three are the same user adding it. There have also been 29 removals, 13 of which were by Lard, and 22 of the 29 mention to see the talk page or make mention of the consensus needing to be reached. I listed the ones mentioning the talk page below.

Lard, See Talk

deleted by Lard, PLEASE SEE TALK PAGE. WE ARE NOT NAMING THE SUSPECT.

deleted by Lard, See talk page.

deleted by Some1, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk Page.

deleted by NtheP, talk page.

deleted by Lard, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page. There is no consensus on adding the suspect's name.

deleted by Lard, Added hat note to see talk page.

deleted by Lard, See hat note and talk page.

deleted by Nthep, See Talk page

deleted by Kashmiri, see talk page

deleted by Lard, see 'various discussions'.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk Page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page.

deleted by Lard, Talk Page. No consensus to add the name yet.

removed by Beccavnr, 'per hidden text, and article text page.'

removed by Dumuzid, 'get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs

I personally think that several policies have been involved - - WP:STONEWALL by ignoring the concerns presented by others, and seemingly cherrypicking which arguments they would counter with brief dismissals, and nothing substantial in terms of rebuttals. - WP:TALKPOV by not staying objective, or remaining neutral. - WP:TALKDONTREVERT by reverting every mention of the name, regardless of what the consensus seems to be at the time. - WP:NOTUNAMITY by ignoring the arguments, and essentially creating a filibuster by removing every addition regardless of what the talk page has stated.

I just want to be able to have a fair consensus, which had appeared to be reached prior but I am not sure of that, and if I am wrong in any of the above statements regarding anything, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as possible, and while I have used Wikipedia for several years, I only recently made an account, so I'm more than likely going to make mistakes.

Awshort (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that

WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, not a user agreement. As a policy it cannot be overridden by a consensus on an individual talk page it would need to be altered at the Wikipedia policy level. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know what this is doing here. There are lots of people adding the name and lots of people removing it. That points to a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. What happened to your referral to

WP:DRN? And why are you eager to include the accused's name in the article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Canterbury Tail - I understand about the policy, but I would further like to point out that that said policy states that "editors must seriously consider not including material" (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which was the issue being discussed on the talk page since it does appear elsewhere when it comes to arrests in connection with murders and higher profile crimes. It should be noted as well that the policy does not outright say that it cannot be done, and it seems to be up for discussion as it currently stands. Several high profile crimes have had their suspects named without convictions, which is the issue I was trying to address. The recent Idaho college murders come to mind, as well as the Pike County murders that were updated with the arrest of the suspects who later were charged, and convicted of the murders.

@Rsjaffe - I put this here because it involves user behavior and what I feel is issues that are hindering consensus, which was the instructions from Wikipedia:Consensus "Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.". The reason for listing the additions was to show that other people had wanted the info inserted, in counter to the argument of "I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include." (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which as stated above I felt was not capable of being met based on user behavior. As for the referral, I haven't been able to follow up to the discussion there yet regarding the content issue due to not having a lot of time around schooling, and figured i would address the user issue here. In regards to your last question about why I am 'eager' to add it,it has been an unsolved murder for several years with no arrests. When the arrest happened and the suspect was publicly named, several people tried to add it (which I understand is WP:NOTNEWS, and should probably have been avoided as being sensationalism). The fact that it was almost continually removed by the same user, and the general consensus on the talk page was ignored as stated in the reasons of my original post brought me here since I felt it was damaging to the consensus process.

Awshort (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this back from the archive since it wasn't closed previously.

I would also like to state that the user is still participating in behavior that seems to violate WP:OWN by almost instantly reverting any removal of, ironically enough, their statement directing people on what to do in the article before editing as being a WP:OWN issue, rather than allowing said users to edit first and discuss after revert.. [50][51] Awshort (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of copy and pasting an old discussion here, what I would do instead is write a new discussion, with a link to the old discussion, with any new info that you want to add in it. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was going from the advice of Wikipedia:Teahouse#Unarchiving a page from Administrators Noticeboard Incidents which said to just copy it back over. I was worried about having multiple articles for the same thing/user, so I wasn't sure proper practice. Awshort (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. That makes sense. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address everything that was commented all at once, but I can't figure out how to strike text - is it not possible when a post is on the ANI?

Im currently using Chrome mobile on my phone, but I seemed to have the same problem on my PC.

Thanks in advance, for any input on this, but also for all of the input above.

Awshort (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE YET

I had a few posts to follow up on, and wanted to make an effort to do it correctly, since my original post was organized rather poorly and I think some things were listed rather vaguely. I will be able to do a proper edit when not on mobile. Thank you.

Awshort (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. I checked out the talk page, and I can’t see any sanctionable behaviour from Lard Almighty. In particular, edit-warring over a comment that explains a consensus on the talk page is probably not a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask for clarification on a few points?

Namely, how is it not stonewalling, when whatever points are brought up in the talk page are ignored and the main article seems more geared towards what one user wants? Maybe I am completely misreading the WP:STONEWALL article, but I felt this seemed to be in conflict with that, as well as WP:OWN by only allowing what they deem necessary on the page. Also, does it not involve WP:FRINGE views with stating that information can't be included due to something that has never been published in any reliable sources, and prevent a NPOV?

I'm not being disrespectful by asking, I am just trying to understand Wikipedia better. I registered an account years ago, made one or two edits and have otherwise been an inactive editor (active visitor, though).

Thanks for your time &/or reply.

Awshort (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the article's talk page, I see the following comment in one section, "Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article." and in another section I see agreement. I see Lard Almighty telling you that court transcriptions are not suitable as sources in articles about living or recently deceased people, which is correct per policy (

WP:BLPPRIMARY

), and also says "BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others", which is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I can't see anything being ignored.

All I can see is people disagreeing with you and you keep asking them to reconsider. Everyone else on the talk page appears to have accepted that consensus might not go their way. Sometimes you've got to accept that you're not going to get the result you want - collaborative editing is about teamwork and compromise, not pushing a dispute when everyone else has got bored and lost interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this been repeatedly brought up at

WP:BLPN? (See archives 343 and 346) It's well past time to drop the stick. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This post was in regards to if a users behavior violated any policies, as it was suggested in one of the many guideline pages to post here for certain issues. This is not about the content of the article.

One of the BLP posts was mine, which suggested a RfC, so I'm not sure how me asking about if someone is stonewalling or anything similar is me beating a dead horse when one is content based and one is not. Awshort (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first post at BLPN was all that was needed, BLPCRIME applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something I'd like to point out that no one's quite said: yes, we like to encourage a collegial environment here, where people talk things over reasonably in order to obtain a consensus. With that, no one is under any compunction to change their mind on your behalf. You can be as eloquent as you please, your arguments may make perfect sense to you, and they might still gain no traction. (Why would I advocate something in the first place, after all, with which I disagreed?) You seem to have mistaken "stonewalling" for failure to agree with your arguments. But that happens here, as in every walk of life; I doubt I could estimate within the nearest hundred the number of eloquent arguments I've made in my time on Wikipedia that didn't budge the needle an inch. Ravenswing 21:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm just wondering how many more noticeboards the OP will bother in order to try and get this suspect's name back in the article. At the last count, I think we're on

• WP:DRN ([52]
  )
• WP:BLP/N ([53]
  )
• WP:ELN ([54]
  )
• WP:CR ([55]
  )
• ...and now
  WP:ANI
  .

• Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like that's quite enough, especially for an account with only 66 edits in total. I would suggest a pblock from Wikipedia space, personally. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have posted on noticeboards that are directly related to the topics at hand, as instructed to do on the policies and guidelines pages. And out of the 5 you listed above,  I don't see how these were asking for the suspects name to be added back.  I'm not exactly sure how using the noticeboards for their intended use would be 'a bother'.

  DRN - asking if consensus had been reached, was told to address at BLP.

  BLPN - asking for clarification on wording and if something is allowable, since BLP itself is vague on what was allowed.

  ELN - Asking if links containing a name are a BLP issue, since it had not been addressed before and needed clarification for future editors of any topic that may run into similar issues, and had been mentioned in the talk page.

  CR - If a consensus is not agreeable, or clear,  it is recommended to go to CR and have a neutral party look and see if consensus has been met and rule on it. Considering that it seems to not be clear, by several other editors aside from the two people involved in this post, I followed the steps it said to take.

  ANI - I have previously went over my reasons for addressing this here, and they didn't involve content, but the user.

  My amount of edits shouldn't have a huge impact on being respected as an editor or person.

  ~~~~ Awshort (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't an issue of lack of respect, but of you

  forum shopping

  to get a result that you want. You cannot just throw this at every potentially relevant notice board, in the hopes someone will agree with you.

  At this point,

  WP:BLPCRIME has been explained to you, and no one seems to agree with your interpretation. Please take that to heart and move on to a different topic of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thank you for the respectful reply and link. I honestly hadn't thought it could be Forum shopping, so I'll check that out.

  As for the explanation, yes it has been explained to me, but my confusion was in the fact that other pages with similar content exist with no BLPCrime issues, and BLPCrime states 'must seriously consider', not outright that something is not allowed..

  Again, thank you for being respectful in explaining stuff to me. I don't know if you can close this topic or not, but I get your point.

  Awshort (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The User:CrashLandingNew started a series of disruptive edits on various article by mass deleting sourced material, which he insisted that it was "pseudo-history", all while without bothering to check the references.

• Deleting sourced content on Jat Muslim page:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. Afterwards, he turned to personal attacks [59]Removing all the ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a sock

• On other pages he kept removing properly cited material all while claiming source does not mention that

1. On Hyder Ali; [60], removing citations while saying it to be unsourced[61], again calling a sock [62]

Afterwards, he breached

I would like to draw the attention of the admins towards the history of all the pages mentioned here by the the User. They all have been recently re-written recently by him/her with a clear bias to push one POV. What we are seeing is a pushing of complete pseudo history with selective citation of sources to suit one's agenda. He wants to push Jat origin of many Subcontinent based Muslim dynasties and has even tried to push offbeat narrative about origins of some famous historical figures. I repeat, just check the history of these pages and see how unchecked rewriting of history was tried. CrashLandingNew (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is no excuse for deleting sourced content... why not discuss the bias of the sources in the talk pages before blanking huge sections of the article? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a user adds something on a page using selective sources without discussing, which completely changes article's existing narrative, shouldn't that be deleted until a consensus is reached? Plz go through the history of all these pages. He has completely changed what was written on them. There are these historical figures with different origin theories and he comes out of nowhere to push the ones he prefers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of these editors have been edit warring over at least 3 different articles. All without either of them using an article talk page. Perhaps the admins should block them both. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, at least a temporary TBAN. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not engaged in any war here. Plz go through the history of these pages. I even adjusted his changes only to keep what was written originally. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It does appear that
  WP:BRD and starting a discussion on the various talk pages, has reverted again. I have no idea who is "right" here, but continued reverting is not a good idea, and I would suggest that the articles be restored to the status quo before the major changes started, and a discussion started about each one. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I did requested him multiple times to use talkpage[66][67][68] a d then even started discussion on respective pages, but he keeps repeating that this was pseudo history, without mentioning that whether there was even problem with cited sources.

Sutyarashi (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As observed above you have made significant changes to a number of articles without discussing. You can't add something to a page without discussing and then expect it not to be removed without discussion when you didn't use the 'Talk page' option yourself in the first place. You have been engaged on all the talk pages where you initiated the communication and discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite Sutyarashi has done the same to my additions also. He made a slight discussion on the talk page however when I gave my reasonings for each of his issues he still isn't satisfied and reverts all my edits. Glad to see im not the only one complaining about this. Has no admin resolved this yet? Trigarta (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your “additions” (removal of 21k bytes of info) at Gandhara were also reverted by two other users. And would have been reverted by me as well, since they’re disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revertes for further explanation and to do them in sections

Which I did, so your point is invalid Trigarta (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

${\displaystyle I(\nu ,T)=2KT\nu ^{2}/c^{2}}$

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

${\displaystyle I(\nu ,T)={\frac {2h\nu ^{3}/c^{2}}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}}$

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

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

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

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

Freoh then writes:

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

Emphasis mine.

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

This is gaslighting

I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:

• approximations are used in physics and science all the time
• when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
  • For example, Newton's laws of motion even after they have been superseded by Quantum mechanics, Special relativity, and General relativity
• the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete

What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page. Dllahr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrong even at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking the

b} 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop the

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

1. His project is WP:countering systemic bias, according to a participant list.
2. The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
3. I think we handled Talk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring on

Rayleigh-Jeans law, but they only have one single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention. Larataguera (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

b} 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count as cited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freoh reverted the re-addition of the category while pointing to

talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I was pinged here, and like User:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the very long discussion at Talk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out by Larataguera above) can simply choose to not engage. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August: He appears to also be tag bombing articles and reverting BRD notices while editing main pages, as he did with Dhtwiki on the James Madison article for several weeks. Binkster, in his comments below here seems to be stating that this has been the long-term edit conduct of Freoh in his edit history. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a misunderstanding,

advice for hotheads.      — Freoh 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"this is a misunderstanding"

Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after you explicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.

b} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As I have previously explained at

verifiability, and I said that I would not object to the category being restored along with a cited sentence.      — Freoh 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add whatever sentence you wanted yourself? I'd like to understand, but I'm at a loss here.

talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Then perhaps, we might "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"— This is an invitation for some of us to go to the

problem page to perhaps work things out? OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Additionally, per

b} 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

At the time, I

chose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material.      — Freoh 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links to

That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be very

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

• After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to what DIYeditor and S Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you characterize my behavior as plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation in Talk:Constitution of the United States about how to discuss the People:

• I listened to Allreet when they opposed my use of footnotes to clarify who the People were, so I made a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
• I listened to ONUnicorn when they pointed out that I was blurring the lines between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who ratified it, and the people who voted for delegates, so I made a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
• I listened to Dhtwiki when they complained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so I made a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressing ONUnicorn's concerns.
• I listened to you, DIYeditor, when you recommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so I edited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
• I listened to you again when you suggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so I made a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
• I listened to BogLogs when they argued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so I made another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
• I listened to Gwillhickers when he argued against making a vague reference to the people as a whole, so I made an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
• I listened to Randy Kryn when he wanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so I made another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.

This conversation has gone on so long because of my substantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying to

honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong.      — Freoh 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that point

WP:LETTINGITBE probably works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• (
  honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to go a lot slower and be a lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at the the failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talk first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself as a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "SJW" is not a good argument against Freoh any more than their "white men" argument holds water as a reason to diminish or remove something from an article. These need to be framed in an appropriate Wikipedia behavior and Wikipedia content fashion. Wikipedia is not a

  WP:BATTLEGROUND and that cuts both ways. Feeling that their calling is to address "institutional bias" or whatever is not a reason to block Freoh from editing. In fact, many would say it's a needed role on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]