User talk:MarioGom

Question regarding SPI
Hi MarioGom, I was surprised to see that you closed the SPI report I submitted stating that no evidence had been presented approximately 10 hours after I supplied additional diffs and said that more were available if needed. Why was this case closed in such a short time after opening? Can you please explain? Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What you presented so far, if I read it correctly is: 1) a shared (not uncommon) interest with other editors, 2) certain temporal overlap, 3) overlap in an article with a few other editors involved, and 4) disagreeing with you. None of these seem unique or telling enough to make any determination. If you still want to make a case, please, provide a concise explanation with diffs. Bullet points usually work better to convey each piece of evidence, and diffs should generally be presented at least in pairs, at least one for the master, and at least one for the reported user. The similarities need to clearly raise above common similarities across users in the topic area. MarioGom (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response and advice; this is my first experience at SPI and I am not aware of the procedures and conventions. But I am puzzled by the rapid closure without allowing time either for me to provide further examples as I offered, or for other editors to comment. This seems very unusual, as there are open cases as far back as early March, and the only rapid closures that I have found are where the sock was agreed and blocked. In any case, I would think that the comment from Polygnotus itself is evidence of longstanding involvement with Wikipedia, in their knowledge of events and editors of over 15 years ago by an account that only started 18 months ago? In any event, can you clarify - do I need to start a new SPI request or can the one I started be reopened? Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reopened the case, feel free to post further evidence, technically you can also post when it's closed but not archived. About the timeline to closure, clerks rarely work in cases in a first come, first served fashion. Cases that are open for months are generally just some exceptions that are particularly hard to handle. About your comment: their knowledge of events and editors of over 15 years ago by an account that only started 18 months ago. No, it's not the case. I have read many discussions from the early Wikipedia days in the articles where I edit the most. It's not all that uncommon. We have page histories and talk page archives for a reason. And, in any case, it is not evidence enough that this account is the same person as Cirt. "Not being new" is simply not enough, and it is not a policy violation. MarioGom (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, they have not added any evidence. Now another cult member is using the opportunity to try to attack the attacker. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Per your suggestion of moving this here
Hello MarioGom. To recapitulate this conversation, when I asked how you had arrived at the title "Characterization as a cult", you said you had not used sources but had summarized the content of the section. However the same verbatim title change proposal was made 4 years ago by two editors that are now banned and who used an unreliable source as the basis for the title change. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your explanation about this is "I have read many previous discussions over the years, and I'll never claim all my proposals are novel ". That doesn't address the question of how your summary of a section can be identical to a proposal made 4 years ago by two banned users. Are you saying it's just mere coincidence? Or are you now changing your answer to claim that you were in fact reviving a proposal from 4 years ago? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand by my previous answers (permalink). I did not change the answer, and I think my previous clarifications would have made sense if read while assuming good faith. But since you seem to be particularly interested in my thought process, I'll try to break it down here as much as possible:
 * Some historical context: this section has been subject to controversy for years. Early disputes I could find trace back to 2018 (Archive 5) when it was titled "Designation as a cult" (permalink). It was changed to "Cult of personality" (diff) in 2021. It has been subject to several disputes over the years, not just the one you linked to. Over time, several possible names have been thrown around. From a quick look to the archives, some were "Characterization as a cult", "Cult-like behavior", "Classification as a cult", "Description as a cult" (yes, some of them mentioned by SharabSalam). "Characterization as a cult", in particular, is mentioned in 4 archive pages. And one of the most recent proposals seem to have been in 2021 (Archive 41).
 * When I said I'm familiar with previous discussions, that means I have read probably all of the archive pages at least once. So my views on consensus building are informed by past discussions. That was what I meant when I said I wouldn't claim all my proposals are novel.
 * I don't think I ever read the linked source, although I'm not 100% since the link seems to be broken now. If you are concerned I was motivated by the contents of that source, rest assured I was not (whatever these contents are).
 * SharabSalam's contributions were not particularly memorable to me, and I don't think I would had any of their comments in mind when doing any particular contribution. I had no good memory of the particular comment you linked to.
 * But since you bring that discussion up, I see it already documented the use of these kind of formulations across other articles in Wikipedia: Characterization as a cult, Classification as a cult or sect, Description as a cult (yes, I have now taken these examples from the conversation you linked to). These formulations are just not so original and unique.
 * In March 2024, when I was doing various improvements to the article, I came across this section again. The title "cult of personality" immediately came across incongruent with the content and cited sources. That is when I changed it to "Characterization as a cult", and I made my rationale pretty clear: rename section to "Characterization as a cult"; many reliable sources used through the article describe the MEK as a cult or a religious sect, that goes well beyond "cult of personality" which is a partial facet that might be attributed to many kinds of organizations, even some that would otherwise not be characterized as a "cult".
 * I thought about other titles like "Cult-like practices". But given the diversity of sources, I thought it would be more appropriate to have a less assertive title, something that lends itself to discuss some historiography, to have some balanced discussion about the different degrees of characterizations by different sources. "Designation as a cult" does not seem appropriate, since "designation" can imply it is a category assigned by some official body, which it is not. Same with "Classification". "Characterization" and "Description" seem fairly appropriate, but "Description as a cult" sounds a bit weirder to me.
 * Have the previous occurrences of the word "Characterization" in multiple past discussions influenced my choice? Yes, I am sure they have. Had a different synonym been discussed more often, there's chanced that I would have used that one instead.
 * Is this "reviving a 4 year old" proposal? No, per my above reasoning, I think that would be a misrepresentation, since I did not have that proposal you linked in mind. Although, had I chosen to bring it up based on that old discussion, there would have not been anything wrong with it. Just like there's nothing wrong with you repeating the same arguments as other banned users in the same previous discussions.
 * I hope that clarifies it and dispels whatever concerns you had, even if I have no idea what legitimate concern you had. MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My inquiry is about the title change you proposed, "Characterization as a cult" (permalink) which I found is the same verbatim title change proposal made 4 years ago by two banned editors. On May 15 2024 I asked you how you arrived at this title, and you said "It's a summary of the content". But now you are saying "I have read probably all of the archive pages at least once. So my views on consensus building are informed by past discussions." These look like two totally different answers. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it seems obvious you will not accept my answers as honest. That's fine. What's your point, and why does it matter? There's really not more I can tell you on this topic. MarioGom (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello MarioGom. You initially said your proposed title was a "summary of the content", and after I told you the same verbatim proposal was made 4 years earlier by two banned users, you changed your answer to saying the proposal came from reading many previous discussions over the years. I accept your answers, but your answer now differs from the answer you initially gave me, that is my point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I explained why it was not a change, but an extended explanation given your insistence. But I cannot change your mind, so be it. I guess we'll have to leave this here. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Republican Party (United States)&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to the DCWC!


Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, MarioGom! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:


 * Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
 * Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
 * Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
 * New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
 * Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators:, , or. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)