Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147

Over the past few months, I've observed a concerning pattern of behavior by

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

Here's the history:

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

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

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

Last October, HEB told

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

IMO it reads as frustrated but trying to do my best to stay on track content wise. I can definitely see how it would read as aggressive though. I would note that in the same way my worst edits have been cherrypicked you could also cherry pick collegiality, for example from this very discussion before it blew up "Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily Agee with them here..."[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• That is not a now-blocked editor, thats a LTA who was blocked years before I ever interacted with them. I did not attack Harley for a blog post, I pointed out they had gotten our policy/guideline wrong and that the restriction they thought existed actually didn't... We are in fact allowed to use sources which are publicly accessible but not online. I would note that The ed17 has omitted the key context here... They end at Harley, but they only brought this to ANI after this happened [2][3]. I find it baffling that the most important context was omitted from the report. Also just a note I currently have a LTA stalker undoing my contribs en-masse so if my comment disappears its almost certainly them and not a participant in this thread good hand-bad handing, I apologize in advance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Thirded. (Like user Espresso Addict, I am not independent of the situation; I have not participated in the linked discussions, but have interacted with Horse Eye's Back in other talk pages). I have also seen HEB's unnecessarily personalized and aggressive behavior toward editors. Late 2022 they received a warning at this noticeboard for aggressive and inaccurate accusations of COI against an appropriately disclosed paid Wikipedian-in-residence. Over the past month or so, HEB has turned attention to similarly disruptive cross-posting that has involved attempts (1) (2) to make public claims about another the personal information of another user (myself), including expressing belief that I should have "zero expectation of privacy" (this fits the pattern of making disagreements personal, about a user's identity, rather than about the substance of edits or content on Wikipedia); and more inaccurate accusations of COI. Of the inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation,
  talk
  ) 05:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation"? I don't think it was aggressive and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. Yes they disclosed (but only on their user page, not on affected talk pages and not whenever they discussed the topic)... But they're also the author of 75% of the article on their employer... See [4]. Disclosure doesn't free you from the other restrictions and expectations... For example "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" and "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

An occasional, rare questionable moment is understandable amid a long history of responsible editing; Rachel Helps (BYU) has a long history of responsible editing. Frequent, consistent misbehavior is much less understandable, especially when set against the backdrop of a pattern of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding; unfortunately, you have a long history of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding.

talk

) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for bringing this notice to my attention @

P-Makoto. To expand on what’s quoted of me there, it is clear to me that HEB has decided that any affiliation at all with the subject matter of an article to constitute a COI violation and they defend their opinion on that and any other subject I’ve seen in an aggressive, non good faith manner. DJ Cane (talk

) 18:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Just so this doesn't get overlooked, I want to point out that the comment from TCN7JM that HEB is replying to was You know this, otherwise there'd be no reason your side has been so heavily pushing for it. C'mon buddy, you're smarter than this. That is a blatant provocation; it's
  WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 08:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  If I was a reason it was a very minor one... Note that the AA roads contingent was considering forking long before I entered the topic space [5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absurdly long stalling of a DYK nomination, including what seems to be suggesting that being religious means one has a COI on religion and are worthy of receiving topic bans / ANI if they do not follow all COI procedures for all religious subjects and suggesting that users with tens of thousands of edits are

SPAs for only editing religion-areas: Talk:Coriantumr (son of Omer). BeanieFan11 (talk

) 16:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The second half of that statement is key, I said that "You have potential..." and you have largely lived up to that potential in the time since (your editing certainly has improved, you're much less tunnel vision these days) even if I wish you would spend more time in non-NFL topic areas (I love your overwhelming passion for the topic area, but your passion for the topic area is also problematic). The idea that I am only on WikiProject NFL to mess with you doesn't pass the smell test[6]. You are a gifted researcher and there are many areas of the project besides American Football which would benefit from your input. It is news that Rlendog is keeping a dossier on me (complete with calling me a "horses behind"[7]), note that they appear to be misrepresenting the content of a number of those diffs... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@

[OMT]

07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have had unpleasant interactions with HEB myself, and the tone of it fits the pattern of what other editors describe above. In this series of edits on a banned editor's user page, HEB seemed to me to have a battleground-y rigidity about wanting to put a "badge of shame" there: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Now I'll say that I know full well that editors disagree on the substance of when to tag or not, but this is a matter of the attitude that HEB brought into that disagreement. One can see a wall of text of editors disagreeing here: [12]. No need to read all of it, but just start at the top and see the attitude adopted by HEB in replying to various editors, not just to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  Additionally, HEB’s insistence that the Book of Mormon should be treated as a work of fiction is not in line with established Wikipedia guidelines (see:

  WP:MVF and others) but when pointed out HEB aggressively doubles down on their interpretation. DJ Cane (talk

  ) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    As I noted in this discussion, paid editors by the BYU Library editing subjects related to the LDS faith (including relevant discussions) is not a

    Wikipedian in Residence program and is even listed as such by Wikimedia. Nobody would bat an eye at paid editors from a state university contributing to pages about state government or adjacent topics. This, of course, is not the topic of this conversation but represents an example of how HEB has adopted a standard of their own to hold editors to that lies outside the standards agreed upon by the community. DJ Cane (talk

    ) 04:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

    This isn't entirely on-topic but you need to go back further, for example Rachel Help's first editor at Harold B. Lee Library is in 2016 (diff unavailable do the copyright strike) and there are substantial edits along with the minor edits... So many substantial edits in fact that she is the author of 75.2% of the page. In 2017 she re-wrote the page [13] with a significant new emphasis on awards and positive rankings. You will also note that there isn't a disclosure on most of those talk pages which is required, we have a system and these editors aren't following it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

    Appears to be ongoing, this edit from the 5th is the sort of edit that really needs to be proposed on the talk page not done directly [14]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

    How so? It appears to be both a paid edit (all of which incur a financial conflict of interest per

    WP:PE) and to have additional conflicts based on organizational affiliation (in case you didn't catch it some of the removed text concerned the "Museum of Art at Brigham Young University"). Horse Eye's Back (talk

    ) 07:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Voting in an AfD (or RFC or similar) is not what that line refers to. It's being

WP:PAID, so it only applies if the account has a COI, which the person you were accusing still very much did not. Loki (talk

) 05:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

) 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Respectfully, Loki, I disagree with your assessment of HEB's behavior. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is not about these interactions and confrontations in isolation, but how they have accumulated into a disruptive pattern. What most alarms me is how even after receiving a warning for harassing Rachel Helps (BYU), HEB has continued to be sufficiently preoccupied with

  WP:HOUNDING

  her that over a year later HEB now is attempting to threaten her students with topic bans. If HEB's behavior were more isolated or didn't have a history behind it, then I could understand not raising it to ANI. However, the extent of it across time, topics, and people lead me to agree with at a minimum Softlavender's proposal.

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

  talk

  ) 04:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I've proposed a formal admonishment below but left it generalized because it's difficult to pinpoint the one true concern. HEB's interpretation of COI is at the root of several—but definitely not all—of the problematic behaviors/concerns identified above, which is broader than LDS/BYU. Still, I'm not sure thatthere would be appetite for enforceable
    [OMT]
    07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, more nuance in BYU's case: All seem to agree that the school owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is — and should be — different from other universities ... the school 'stands unquestionably committed to its unique academic mission and to the church that sponsors it.' ... 'being a university second to none in its role primarily as an undergraduate teaching institution that is unequivocally true to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the process' [15] Levivich (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  @

  [OMT]

  20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

I think this is a very self explanatory piece. Baiting and harassment in its finest. [16] — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Seems like a reasonable response to an editor removing another editor's talk page comment with the edit summary "rm bad faith comment." I'm not the one in that series of discussions openly engaging in battleground behavior "regardless its no longer my battle" [17] yet I'm the one thats been dragged to ANI. Odd no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707, no it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's examples like that why me and many others didn't think twice about opposing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

COI clarification

Admonishment proposal

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

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

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

Pinging the users who have commented above:

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - as written - admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied - is too vague and doesn't offer any specificity. Admin discretion would allow an admin action to be just another warning, and what editing restrictions are you asking for? You stated there is a "concerning pattern of behavior" by HEB, "and they have not stopped", but this proposal falls short of actually stopping and/or curtailing that behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @
    [OMT]
    17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that having this ANI opened is punishment enough and should give HEB plenty to think about. No formal warning required. Tooncool64 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @

  [OMT]

  17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see any behaviour that would warrant a sanction of any type. I think we are perhaps dealing with users who are over-estimating what is required in terms of politeness to suggest
  WP:NPA excludes any display of exasperation at all.Boynamedsue (talk
  ) 10:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the diffs are not frequent, not aggressive, not battleground, and not sealioning. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the additional suggestion that further formal action be proposed and discussed. I agree with Isaidnoway that the proposal as written risks doing too little to dissuade HEB. HEB has been warned here at ANI previously (see
  talk
  ) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with the additional note that I’d like to see one or more specific consequences outlined in this forum for if HEB continues the unwarranted aggression, targeting, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Bringing up years old edits to justify and/or sidetrack the discussion, see references to issues from 2021 and issues from 2016-17. In the latter example, it is admitted that it isn't on topic. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 11:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In neither diff do I "try to justify themselves" unless I'm missing something. "it is admitted that it isn't on topic" would appear to misrepresent "This isn't entirely on-topic" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  @

  [OMT]

  17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  Saying stuff another editor doesn't like isn't what a

  personal attack is. This comment is entirely about on-wiki behavior, and it's also, frankly, obviously true. Loki (talk

  ) 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Are you thinking of this from (ironically) @The ed17: in that same conversation "That's a pretty extreme stance."[20] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  "Extremist" is almost always used to describe the worst of society. That the word is derived from "extreme" does not mean that they are similar in use or impact. I'd invite you both to re-read what I posted above, where I called out the problems with using "extremist" in that context, and continue on to explore how the two words are used outside of Wikipedia.

  [OMT]

  17:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  I invite you to log off the dictionary, walk into a crowd of people, and see what happens when you accuse one person of being an extremist vs. accusing another of stating an extreme opinion in a social context. In any case, we're now off the topic of this ANI.

  [OMT]

  20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  talk

  ) 01:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  Leaving aside a few issues which I assume will lead a closing admin to discount this comment (that this ignores the conversation above in favor of a content dispute, that this account knew Wikipedia policies from its first edit one month ago, and that this account could also make references to edit summaries, original research, markup, and wikicode a ~week later)—is your use of the phrase "fictional character articles" meant to refer to figures from the

  [OMT]

  22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  talk

  ) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk

) 07:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

If you don't like me using the singular "they" to refer to you, I am sorry about that; I didn't see information on your HEB user page about what pronouns are appropriate so I figured using gender neutral terms was best. But I don't understand how disagreeing about whether or not "they" can be singular is ultimately relevant?

talk

) 15:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

I think something has been lost in translation, I prefer the singular they (but don't make a big deal when people use he/she, the OG account name made a lot of people think I was a man because they read it as a reference to

Jack (name) not Horse-eye jack) for myself. What I meant there was that by "they" I was referring to the whole ecosystem of paid BYU editors, not just Rachel Helps (BYU). Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

talk

) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

talk

) 15:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits. Reviewing her edits, maybe not, but telling her what to do? Absolutely. That's the issue with BYU: policy is set by LDS Church. BYU faculty/staff/students/alum have raised these concerns for years; somewhere up above I linked to a newspaper article about it, and it's discussed in the Wikipedia article about BYU. Theirs is a very widely known and ongoing issue with LDS Church constraining academic freedom at BYU. [22]. We even have a whole article about it, Academic freedom at Brigham Young University. As I understand it, BYU's mission is to support/promote the LDS Church and BYU employees are required to further that mission (or at least prohibited from impeding it). This is what makes BYU unlike other religious-affiliated universities. It's not just like "oh we're a Christian university" by vague values or precepts or history, it's a university actually wholly owned and operated by a church. That's more like a seminary than a university. Levivich (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  Your select responses to opposition votes feels borderline

  WP:INAPPNOTE. Tooncool64 (talk

  ) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am 90% certain you meant to link to

  WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk

  ) 06:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Support. Given both the scope of the OP and the breadth of the issues raised semi-independently by many different editors above, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest that any kind of sanction or admonishment here should hinge on whether one agrees with HEB's interpretation of COI in one narrow context. First off, even just looking at what has been shared in the diffs here, some of their comments in that area are deeply
  WP:IDHT throughout this thread. HEB is not categorically incorrect that a high degree of productive edits and many edits made in less disruptive interactions go towards buffering against criticism when their conduct is found to be sub-par. I for one do consider those ameliorating factors when forming an opinion about whether the time has come for community action. But only up to a point. And when I say "up to a point", I don't mean that we should measure such things as matter of a ratio of volume of good edits vs. disruptive behaviours. Rather, I mean, there are certain thresholds that once passed, require the community to intervene. And there's evidence of plenty of that above. Honestly, I might very well have supported a sanction with more teeth under the circumstances, and I feel a warning at the least is more than appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap}
  03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, just not enough there. I'm particularly concerned about the characterization of the BDS and LDS edits as "harassment", which by my reading is sufficiently baseless to qualify as
  WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 07:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as an aside, reading the above, has some agreement been made among the parties that this question must be taken to

WP:COIN once this discussion is concluded? It seems pretty evident it should, given it is largely disagreement on this policy which has created this situation. --Boynamedsue (talk

) 08:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Their MO seems to be tag the article then demand anyone challenging their tags prove themselves, as shown above often aggressively. Yet they have only ever nominated 5 articles for deletion [24] with a 0.00% success rate. A further question should be, should HEB be topic banned from article tagging? 1.145.151.182 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Given the rapidity of these tagging runs it is clear they conduct no WP:BEFORE checks to confirm if the article is notable". No that's not clear. That's a ridiculous statement. If you're going to cast

WP:ASPERSIONS, you need to provide incontrovertible evidence. TarnishedPath^talk

03:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am criticizing you for what appears to be a lack of diligence. While

WP:BLUDGEONing those who oppose your noms seems to be the common trend. I agree completely with the comment directly below, you take an uncompromising approach in relentlessly enforcing unconventional interpretations of WP policies and guidelines. And you from what you have written here, you seem to be steadfast in the face of all criticizm. 1.145.151.182 (talk

) 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC).

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

I am not unique in holding these views:

WP:RESPTAG. 1.145.151.182 (talk

) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC).

I'm sorry but you don't have me at all. You were accusing an editor of not following some policy you made up prior to placing notability tags and then when challenged you refer to a help article, a information article and a essay which don't pertain to your assertion that they ought to have been doing a

full AfD-before every time they place a notability tag. This is weak sauce. TarnishedPath^talk

11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Sure: [25][26][27]. All of your AFD nominations were argued on notability grounds, the fact that 100% of them have failed would suggest your understanding of notability is at odds with the community's. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@

[OMT]

05:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The comment above about "heterodox views on policy" certainly rings true. I was astonished to lectured be HEB last year on how apparently scientific knowledge is just "opinion" and needs to be attributed on Wikipedia. They informed me[28] of my apparent misunderstanding and suggested all my work on Wikipedia (that's 60,000 edits) would need "cleanup" with their help. Fortunately in the articles I edit there is enough weight of consensus this sort of thing is just dismissed as HEB going off on one, to be ignored. A combination of extreme zeal and fundamental misunderstanding is not a good thing, and even where HEB is "right" on the merits (as they often are), it should be noted Wikipedia has been changing over the years and these days
  WP:BRIE. Bon courage (talk
  ) 08:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose - This proposal could be better handled with a
  WP:TROUTing of HEB for being too personal / biting with some of their comments. Nothing else formal needs to happen here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
  18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Everything - I will keep this brief for fear of a swift indeffing, but suboptimal behavior is not malum in se. If we go about judging everyone on their bad interactions on bad days, there will be no one left to obsess over the minutiae we all crave. Perhaps others have different experiences, but in my life, I have known collegial people to disagree, to verbally spar, and even sometimes to end up using intemperate words. Should HEB do better? Absolutely. So should we all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Further comment. I already said above that I support the proposal, and further up above I showed diffs of the gravedancing edits, but I just remembered something that really needs to be pointed out here. Just after the gravedancing incident that I detailed above, HEB followed me to an essay that I had written, and made disruptive and
  WP:POINTy joke edits there: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. He also made constructive edits in the course of doing that, and of course there's nothing wrong with trying to improve an essay that someone else had started. But the edits I highlight here range from not particularly constructive to plainly vexatious. Coming as it did, immediately after the gravedancing incident, it seems to me to be a mean-spirited settling of the score. And that fits very much into the pattern of conduct described by so many other editors here. It seems to me that an admonishment here is pretty lenient. --Tryptofish (talk
  ) 20:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  This definitely fits the pattern of behavior: after not immediately getting their way with a user on one page, HEB's subsequent edits end up including confrontational attention on other pages that user is involved in. It was the same way Simon Harley: HEB started cutting citations to the Dreadnaught Project after seeing Simon Harley's blog post.

  talk

  ) 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion closure discussion

Comment I'm reading 17 for and 18 against. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Additionally there has been strong allegations of

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Can an administrator please close this as there is no consensus for anything. TarnishedPath^talk

13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@

[OMT]

17:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Ed. I agree that there have not been "strong allegations" that significantly impacted the participants. Editor boynamedsue, one of those who initially wondered if there was canvassing, concluded a bit later that {{[tq|There is no definite evidence of off-wiki organising}} and added that as things go we are still in AGF territory.

I think that users who have commented in favor of formal admonishment have presented well-documented concerns about serious behavior from HEB that violates

talk

) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

While consensus is not a vote, it is supposed to represent the, y'know, consensus of the discussion. I really don't think any reasonable closer could describe this discussion as having a consensus to do anything. Loki (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously on one "side" of this, but it seems to me that those supporting an admonishment have provided very specific evidence of the reasons for it. Although I don't think it is true of all those who oppose the proposal, a significant subset of those have failed to refute that evidence, saying either that they just don't think it matters enough (apparently not even enough for an admonishment, which is much milder than an block or ban), or saying that there is canvassing or other bad behavior on the other side. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

+1. The consensus level needed for an admonishment may be lower than the consensus required for, say, an indef block. Like RfA vs. RfB. But that's for someone else to evaluate.

[OMT]

20:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add anything to my comment because I felt the support side hadn't shown convincing enough evidence, but all this is up to the brave editor who ultimately makes the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the support side has provided a list of diffs, but in my opinion they don't show what they're alleged to. Loki (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

^ Which is exactly what I described. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is?

The side supporting an admonishment provided a list of diffs. I read all those diffs and none of them seem particularly battleground-y or aggressive to me in context. Aquillion gave a thorough debunking of one above and we also discussed the "extremist" diff at length, but the long and short of it is that if you read the individual diffs they're all like that. Loki (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In context, HEB began removing citations to The Dreadnaught Project (an online encyclopedia co-edited/co-authored by Simon Harley) across multiple pages (1) (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) around the same time that they read a Harley-authored blog post they disagreed with. In every case, HEB claimed the source was not reliable, disregarding prior discussion about The Dreadnought Project at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. When asked to not unjustifiably remove citations to The Dreadnought Project, HEB accused Simon Harley of failing to disclose COI.

In context, after Rachel Helps (BYU) gave HEB some advice about source-text integrity, then HEB started making disruptive edits on pages Rachel Helps (BYU) had been contributing to, removing content and calling it "irrelevant" and inaccurately accusing her of COI.

In context, after receiving a warning here at ANI to stop hounding Rachel Helps (BYU), HEB has circled back around to her and her student employees. HEB posted inaccurate COI accusations to multiple editors' pages (1), (2), posted another such accusation on an Articles for Deletion page, told Heidi Pusey BYU and other BYU WiR editors to not participate in an AfD discussion or they would nominate them for topic bans for topic bans and said Y'all wouldn't be playing games with me now would you? when editors continued to participate, disregarding the inaccurate instruction.

Whatever HEB's intent may be, the result that emerges in context is disruptive editing that starts after perceived disagreements, and an inability or unwillingness to recognize that disruption. The extents to which HEB is willing to go—numerous questionable removals of sources, multiple questionable COI accusations—amounts to a pattern of behavior on HEB's part which is contrary to

WP:CIVIL

.

I think that HEB's behavior toward Simon Harley and their long-term behavior toward Rachel Helps (BYU) (which has extended to include behavior toward student editors as well) are sufficient to warrant formal admonishment. I consider the diff Aquillion addressed and the "extremist" diff irrelevant to the way HEB's behavior toward Simon Harley and toward BYU WiR editors warrants formal admonishment.

talk

) 01:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of that doesn't seem to be right... For example if Rachel Helps is a paid editor then there is nothing inaccurate about the COI claim... And unless I'm missing something they are a disclosed paid editing account and as such have a financial COI with every single paid edit they make. I also didn't disagree with the blog post, I pointed out an error in it... Overall I agree with its contents. I would also note that if I had so inaccurately summarized either of those positions by other editors they would be in the diffs against me, but we have a double standard here. You are welcome to bring diffs against me, but it has to be real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To quote another user who expressed the matter well, this series of diffs indicates that HEB's interpretation of COI is way too expansive. The idea that working at BYU (or heck, directly for the LDS church) means you can't vote in an AfD about Mormon scripture is IMO nuts. That would mean that rabbis have a COI about Moses.

talk

) 04:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had much to do with COI on Wikipedia but if his ideas about COI don't align with Wikipedia's policy then perhaps Wikipedia's policy should change.

A story about how COI's are handled in professional environments. Recently in my local shire council there was going to be a vote about lease agreements to childcare/kindgarten centres which lease council premises. The current agreements are extremely generous as the centres are not-for-profits, which benefits the community by providing childcare at much reduced prices than commercial operations. However council is under severe financial strain and is looking to increase revenue wherever it can. The Councillors were extremely polarised on the issue and it looked like it was going to be a vote going against community wishes. One of the councillors who was going to vote for on the side of the community at the start of discussion declared he had a COI as his partner worked for one of he childcare centres and thus he was not allowed to participate in any discussions regarding any proposal to change the lease agreements or vote. My workplace has even stricter arrangements concerning COIs. TarnishedPath^talk 10:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my interpretation of COI is more or less accurate... Which is why none of the editors who oppose it seem to have actually based their arguments on policy/guideline but personal opinion (or at least I don't think they have, as always open to correction). Wikipedia's COI restrictions are *very* loose (like you my workplace's COI policy is *much* stricter), which is why its so odd to see people calling them onerous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

See this comment as an example of relevant policy being referenced to you. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 11:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean "is not a

WP:COIE"? COIE is an explanatory essay, COI is a guideline (and doesn't even appear to have been referenced, just linked). Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 11:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, hold up, are you seriously claiming that a discussion where as many editors of the Dreadnought Project itself commented as neutral editors advocating for using it (two) counts as binding consensus across the entire project that it's a reliable source?

This sort of thing is exactly the issue with the evidence presented: everyone who is for sanctions seems to think that posting many diffs is sufficient evidence even if each of those diffs individually is terrible evidence of any misbehavior on HEB's part. But garbage in garbage out: you can't expect to post a bunch of diffs-that-don't-prove-anything and expect it to add up to a sanction no matter how many of them there are. Loki (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm seriously claiming that HEB all of a sudden excising references, across multiple pages, to a source that academic journal articles and numerous military history books have cited as reliable, with no explanation other than "not reliable", after happening to read a blog post they say they found a flaw in written by one of the editors of that source, is hard to look at without wondering if something retaliatory happened.

talk

) 04:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just re the difs question, a lot of difs have been provided. But within those difs there is very little evidence. The people who have presented these difs often have a long history of personal disagreements with HEB, the people who have opposed them do not. Could the history of disagreements be colouring their perception of these difs?

As to my mention of off-wiki organising, I was talking only about LDS, I have not looked in detail into the roads section, so I have no idea about that. As it stands, I strongly suspect that some LDS off-wiki organising has occurred. However, I recognise my suspicion is not enough to override AGF.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The people who have presented these diffs often have experience interacting with HEB when HEB disruptively removes references without providing reasons or derails talk page conversations with COI accusations that don't comport with Wikipedia policy. The people who have opposed them seem to have less experiences like that. Could unfamiliarity with HEB's patterns of behavior be coloring the latter's perception of these diffs?

Inasmuch as we're assuming good faith, I'd appreciate you setting aside that suspicion.

talk

) 16:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a reason provided in all of the diffs presented so far, if you look hard enough you can probably find a fat fingered edit without an edit summary but there certainly isn't a pattern of them. The rest ("disruptively" "derails") is largely opinion and you are welcome to it but its a bit odd when combined with a call to AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've come across HEB in talk discussions, although we have not interacted directly, and I find your comment to be off mark. TarnishedPath^talk 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, I disagree that those who oppose have failed to refute the evidence. A large number have stated categorically that they have looked at the diffs and that in context they do not see it. That is very different from your claim that those voting to oppose are saying that "they just don't think it matters enough". TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to see how simply stating that one doesn't see a problem with the cited diffs amounts to an effective rebuttal of the issues presented. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 11:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@DJ Cane a user above gave Special:Diff/1113148084 as evidence of battleground behaviour by HEB. One does not need to go out and collect expert options about such matters to refute it. Saying that no, your evidence does not support your assertion is an effective rebuttal. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that that diff is a non-issue, but there has been evidence offered of multiple instances of behavior more problematic than that and reasonably brushing off a few bad examples doesn't refute all of the behavior presented. Multiple oppose votes simply reference Black Kite's vote which itself only references one example. Black Kite's example, for what it's worth, is also one that I think doesn't represent the meat of the problem which is that HEB can become aggressive and run around in circles, most often (from what I've seen) when they dispute the notability of an article or bring up a COI concern. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 12:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I myself referenced Black Kite's vote, but only after I looked at the diffs myself and a lot of the diffs were not far off the example I provided above as far as not substantiating the allegation. People really need to

WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. TarnishedPath^talk

12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at the arguments "that in context they do not see it", and when I compare and contrast that to "they just don't think it matters enough", my reaction to the argument that these are meaningfully different things is that I do not see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I referenced Black Kite, I did read the diffs and other comments. I'm sure other editors are also literate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Further issue

As long as this is staying open, I want to note: [34], [35]. Sure looks like a deliberate non-answer to me. And with the inevitable scrutiny of a still-open ANI thread, it sure looks like continued conduct, without caring. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Tryptofish this is uncollegial, if I'm wrong and there is another way to get it to thank someone for the creation of an article rather than hitting thank on the creation diff let me know but throwing AGF into the gutter along with civility is just wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pot and kettle. It sounds like, in context, that particular editor did not want to be thanked, nor were they asking you to explain how notifications work. But you are making my point for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're missing something... First of all "If you liked the page, please just thank the version in mainspace." and second I explained why I liked that specific diff not one of the versions in mainspace. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

She said that it was "a mostly blank draft page in my userspace". But even if this is now a post-draft article in mainspace, it sure sounds like you were "watching my contributions and wanting me to know they are watching". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the creation diff. If you know another way to thank someone for the creation than thanking them for the creation let me know. I liked a single edit which created a page of a book I own, if I was going to try and send that message wouldn't I go about it very differently? I've had people use thanks aggressively with me before, it was never a single thank for a page creation... It was a thank on every page I edited in a certain period of time and some from wayyyy back in the day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I didn't bring it up here because I wasn't sure of it being against rules and wasn't ready to characterize it as part of the pattern of behavior that I considered crossing lines of civility and hounding (see my comments above in this thread). For me it was personally uncomfortable (because I don't know how HEB would have known about that page so quickly other than by apparently watching my contributions and wanting me to know they are watching), so I brought it up with HEB on their talk page, editor to editor.

talk

) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Which is perfectly reasonable. But given that it made you uncomfortable, I see it as relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@

[OMT]

21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Same pattern as what I said here: [36]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a point at which nitpicking becomes harassment and y'all passed it a while ago. Levivich (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOLLOWING is not a nitpick. But if you think I'm harassing anyone, start a thread about it. --Tryptofish (talk

) 22:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to both of Tryptofish's sentences above. There's a reason I brought that MILHIST example up here, in a discussion about following another user, rather than separately. As WP:FOLLOWING says, "Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, 'following another user around', if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by [...] disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter".

[OMT]

00:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

HEB has made edits to Talk:MILHIST since 2021. Trying to portray HEB making a post at MILHIST in which he agrees with you as WP:FOLLOWING is... not persuasive. Meanwhile, on Jan 4, you actually WP:FOLLOWed HEB from Simon Harley's talk page to a bunch of articles you had never edited before and reverted HEB's edits. [37] Levivich (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

First, Levivich, he responded to my edit in eight minutes. To me, eight minutes does not leave much room for an alternative narrative. YMMV.

Second, while recognizing that as an

P-Makoto in this diff, but in short my reverts were directly related to the discussion on Simon Harley's talk page. HEB removed the Dreadnought Project, a website authored in part by Simon, as a source from several different articles after reading a blog post by Simon that was critical of Wikipedia. As my edit summaries explained ("revert per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#dreadnoughtproject

; more discussion is likely needed"), I reverted HEB's edits as a small reliable sources noticeboard discussion had previously indicated that the Dreadnought Project would likely be reliable.

For why the reverts are not hounding, see WP:FOLLOWING again ("Correct use of an editor's history includes [but is not limited to] fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"). You can also read User talk:Simon Harley#Blog post for how I knew there were edits that needed reverting (specifically, search for "wholesale removal").

Anyway, this is a thread about HEB. If you have concerns with my editing, my talk page is open or ANI's add topic button is above.

[OMT]

02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Since this misconception has occurred twice in this thread chain, discussions at AN/I can cover all parties to a dispute (and all participants), rather than being solely focused on a single editor. CMD (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No misconception here; I'm aware of that possibility. I suggested starting a new thread because the comment distracts from the OP.

[OMT]

04:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That page has been on my watchlist forever... I even disclosed in-comment that we were in a disagreement elsewhere... If disagreeing with someone on one page means you can't agree with them on another or congratulate them on their successes or thank them for valuable edits then what is

WP:CIVIL? What doesn't seem plausible is that you thought that my agreeing with you on a noticeboard was intended to harass you. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 04:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also note that your timeline re dreadnaught and Simon is wrong, I started removing that source before I read the blog post which I only found because a search for the source returned Simon's user page along with the other pages I edited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that following me to WT:MILHIST was harassment, and if I thought it was I would have brought it up in the OP! I did say that it didn't make me uncomfortable in context, and that I brought it up only because it was an action similar to a pattern Tryptofish identified. I've struck the incorrect words above.

[OMT]

06:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can clarify exactly what you meant by "To me, eight minutes does not leave much room for an alternative narrative." if thats not an accusation of harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That there is little room for a narrative that doesn't involve following me to that discussion.

[OMT]

07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And you believe that even after being informed that I am a consistent contributor on that page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been going for 11 days now. There is no consensus for anything to occur. People need to move on and

WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk

05:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked for an admin closure days ago, but it was archived off AN. I've restored that request now.

[OMT]

06:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)