User talk:Axad12

A beer for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Blank comment?

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Polyomino

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

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

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

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

Archiving talk page topics

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

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

Michael.greenacre

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

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

Believe me, I do take your point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Gary Klesch

Hi Axad12 – I hope you are well!

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

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

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

Dafna Lemish page updates

Hi Axad12,

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

Thank you! TheBlueHeronofHopewell

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

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

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

Invitation to join WikiProject Edit requests

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

Don't collapse again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metalworker14

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

SPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No no, please... you go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROD and older articles

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

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

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

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

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

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