Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grawp attack on CHU

I am posting here because user:bloodofox has been chronically and intractably stubborn, argumentative, and belittling to fellow editors. They have displayed a WP:OWNership attitude about articles they have written and topics they're involved with.

To provide some context and evidence of a long-term pattern, they've been at AE three times: November 2016, which resulted in a year-long topic ban from the Clintons; May 2020; and December 2023 which was closed with "All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views."

More recently, in december 2024, theleekycauldron nominated an article of theirs for deletion. Their response to a good-faith nomination was {{tq|No and learn the basics before even nominating something like this. This is just obnoxious. [...] There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them.}} During the discussion, they were hostile and condescending, even editing their messages to be more hostile —

• {{tq|Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it. These aren't "story summaries", which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete. [...] This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd.}}
• {{tq|Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.}}

This is exemplary of a pattern of behavior where bloodofox asserts that those who disagree with them must be unfamiliar with the topic and/or acting in bad faith.

• June 2024: {{tq|From your response, it appears that you are new to this topic.}}
• November 2024: {{tq|If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else.}}; {{tq|Or maybe you could briefly glanced at the article before you decided to try to revert war? Maybe invest in a punching bag rather than trying to take whatever it is you're dealing with out on random Wikipedia volunteers.}} JBW gently requested they reconsider their messages and be more civil, and bloodofox doubled down.
• April 2025: ForsythiaJo added to an article which bloodofox had previously rewritten, and all of their contributions were immediately reverted. Bloodofox accused them of censorship over a fairly simple good-faith content dispute — {{tq|As long as you continue to censor the lead, your edits will be reverted on sight.}} (link); {{tq|This article is a common target for would-be censors [...] Attempts at censoring this article (WP:CENSOR) will be reverted on sight.}} (link); {{tq|You need to read the article and, for that matter, more about the topic before writing about it}} (link)

This brings us to current behavior. The discussion at Talk:Braucherei has been going on since March; the whole talk page is a mess, and bloodofox is hardly the only person being hostile and making accusations — however, it is worth noting that after confronting another editor for canvassing, they themselves blatantly canvassed at FTN and were called out on it by FactOrOpinion (link), Nil Einne (link), and Jessintime (link).

I first encountered them during discussion around Bæddel and bædling. It was promoted to GA in December, and FA in early February, appearing on the main page as TFA on April 17. By April 20, bloodofox had started no fewer than 10 talk page sections. On june 3 they added two more after a hiatus on the article. To date, they have [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#top-editors contributed 53% of the talk page's text], overwhelming everyone else in the discussion; over three times as much text as the next biggest contributor, and twice as much as the actual article in question. This is not including times the article has been brought to other pages, such as Borsoka's talk page (link), where he adopted a somewhat condescending attitude, calling him "{{tq|a new editor here}}", and defending changes made against talk page consensus by noting {{tq|If corrections are not applauded, the system is broken}}. When Borsoka noted that they were ignoring the views of other editors, they responded {{tq|How? I'm easily the most active individual on the talk page and as I review the article I am finding a plethora of issues.}}

Bloodofox regularly belittles other editors based on not having a real-life academic background in linguistics (something that Wikipedia, as a volunteer project, does not require).

• {{Tq|To clarify your understanding, what is your background in linguistics?}} (link)
• {{Tq|The primary issue here is that article was rubber stamped by editors without a background in linguistics}} (link)
• {{Tq|Did anyone in these reviews have a background in linguistics?}} (link)
• {{Tq|only editors with familiarity with linguistics should have been involved in the review}} (link)

ImaginesTigers indicated he has an academic background: {{tq|FYI: I have a relevant academic background, although I don't think this matters much and I wouldn't brandish it like a dubious flag. Such things have been abused in the past (see Essjay controversy)}} (link) and this was interpreted this as a full attack on bloodofox's character: {{tq|First, you've written this response aimed at critiquing me personally. I find the comparison to the Essjay controversy outrageous, insulting, and beyond the pale. Please strike that and refactor your text: Seriously, are you here to improve the article or to attack an individual editor? A reminder: this is a linguistics topic. If editors are uncomfortable or ungrounded in linguistics, they're going to have a hard time.}} (link) He mentioned this again later despite ImaginesTigers and FAR coord Nikkimaria asking that this be litigated elsewhere.

This behavior — insisting that one must be a specialist in a field to have the final say on any content matter — is a consistent trend, and certainly one that makes the collaborative task of building an encyclopedia rather difficult for other editors. I am loath to bring this here, but their disruptive behavior has simply taken so much time out of too many editors' days. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:"insisting that one must be a specialist in a field to have the final say on any content matter" is just outright untrue (how would I even do that? I have no control over that) and these quotes are cherry-picked out of context from a period spanning nearly a decade (2016, seriously!). Having happily collaborated and worked with many, many editors over the years on thousands of articles, I've long learned it doesn't pay to revert-war and all sourcing concerns should be on talk.

:Spending all that time trawling through my many thousands of edits all the way back to 2016 (again, 2016!) and pasting them here without any context (like me responding to ideological drive-by editing at Mami Wata or the constant, well-documented new religious movement attempts to control Falun Gong and related articles—sourced in the article no less) while quite selectively pinging anyone I've had a disagreement with over the past several years will of course just result in a dogpile on me by anyone who wants to get their digs in and is not something I personally would do to anyone.

:I get that you're unhappy about the discussion around your featured article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry like me finding that you had completely misattributed a source and indeed that nobody at FA checked it before passing it along], but you could have just as simply engaged in source discussion with the several of us discussing it at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bæddel_and_bædling/archive1 your featured article review]. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::the AE incidents from 2016-2023 are only briefly mentioned at the beginning, to establish that this is a long-running issue - that is normal at ANI, where people often ask for evidence of long-term behavioral patterns. one other quote from june 2024 is also a brief footnote. everything else, the bulk of the report, is from november 2024 to the present. i would hardly call that trawling through a decade of your edits (it's easier to skim user-talk page archives anyway) - these recent talk page discussions make up a substantial proportion, if not the majority, of your contributions in the last few months. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, most of the time I've had on Wikipedia for the past several months has been spent rewriting Braucherei (it uncontroversially needed it) and a few related articles or attempting to get sources confirmed and discussed when I encounter an issue. This is a fishing expedition that involves the editor sifting through my editor history to cherry pick quotes and highlight 'incidents' from articles as diverse as Mami Wata and Falun Gong, both of which are indeed for different reasons targets for drive-by attempts at censorship and scrubbing (as anyone can see from their talk pages or edit histories). This is a classic case of a handful of aggrieved editors trawling through my edit history to find cherry-picked examples and present them out of context while neglecting to mention their own actions and pinging anyone else I might have had a talk page disagreement with that might want to pile on. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:was pinged as part of evidence: ah, yeah, that AfD. that was a genuinely awful experience. Generalissima does a pretty good job of laying out what happened in that AfD, so I'll just add that I really was making an effort to raise my concerns and understand bloodofox's points. I like learning new things and I don't expect to understand everything perfectly on the first try – that's what makes DYK work really fun for me. But the way they blew up at me felt really hurtful and intimidating, and between that and the pings, i just gave up and the AfD closed. I've seen other discussions involving bloodofox that I would've wanted to participate in, but the interaction we had in that AfD was so terrible that the idea of stepping into another discussion to disagree with them seemed pointless and exhausting, so I just decided not to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::The AfD, where you argued to delete the article outright, was in fact a snowball keep because what you claimed about the article was incorrect, not because of some nefarious action on my part. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, it wasn't a snowball keep, bloodofox, so please don't misrepresent the discussion – the AfD ran the full seven days, and that's despite you having canvassed 5 of the 7 other keep votes. But this discussion isn't about content, it's about conduct – I never said that the AfD closed as keep because of your incivility, as if incivility is only a problem when it affects the outcome. It's the opposite: even being right isn't enough. Just in this thread, I'm seeing lots of other people come forward with their stories of how you derided them as incompetent, negligent, or bad-faith, and how it discouraged them from working with you. It wouldn't matter if you were 100% right on every single content dispute cited here – that's still not an acceptable way to treat people. I know how each one of those people felt trying to accomplish anything working with you, and that's why I wrote into this thread and spoke up – trust me when I say that I really didn't want to relive and repeat that experience. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}}Bloodofox tends to put his criticisms a lot more trenchantly than I would, but this keeps coming up because they're an expert in several fields where Wikipedia has relatively few experts, or at least few who are now active to the extent of monitoring everything on their watchlists: Norse mythology, Germanic linguistics, folklore. In a crowdsourced project, people are sometimes going to edit beyond their knowledge (goodness knows, I have), and this arises especially at the intersections of specialties (such as with Bæddel and bædling, it's a Germanic philology topic but also a queer history topic). I've expressed myself with bewilderment over Bæddel and bædling that his expert rewrite has been constantly opposed and that despite repeated explanations, it seems yet more discussion is always needed before the article can actually be improved; it seems counter to the whole spirit of Wikipedia collaboration, and to what I found when I looked up the process for improving an FA. I also participated in a recent deletion discussion, probably the one referred to, which was robust but ended in "keep and improve" after I and others marshalled usable sources and explained the cultural/scholarly context. Bloodofox has numerous GAs to his name, showing a commitment to quality as well as to encyclopedic coverage, while I just don't have any interest in GA or FA processes. Sometimes smoke means fire, there will be disagreements on the project, and it's quite easy to get into a topic that turns out to have been extensively studied (especially if you haven't previously written similar articles and don't realize what they should cover). And Bloodofox is rarely denying people's right to edit or opine on a topic, rather than—robustly and trenchantly, and often with specific citations—pointing out the relevant scholarship. In addition to actually editing the article, with citations. Except for the very direct, sometimes abrasive phrasing, I'd say those are all good collaboration. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yngvadottir, despite some overlap in linguistic interests, I have not encountered bloodofox organically in talk space, so I lack that piece to consider whether your assessment or that of the numerous parties complaining here is closer to the mark. But that said, we have seen BOO involved in a non-trivial number of high-conflict discussions here and FTN. And just in terms of the many diffs cited in the early going in this discussion, we have more than sufficient cause to doubt {{tq|"Bloodofox is rarely denying people's right to edit or opine on a topic"}} as an accurate summary of their conduct in disputes. Indeed, they seem to fall back upon this variety of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:Gatekeeping with serious abandon whenever confronted with positions contrary to their own in areas that they have defined as within their wheelhouse. {{pb}} Further, even if they were in fact "rarely" indulging in such a habit, that would still be a serious concern: they've been on this project for far too long to not be fully aware that we do no restrict access to articles on the basis of demonstrated academic credentials, for a bevy of reasons. They should not be engaging in any degree of effort to restrict or discourage other editors on this basis whatsoever--let alone with the frequency and the hostile, bullying tone that we are seeing in numerous of the diffs presented here. These behaviours (which, let's be clear, are only one component of larger issues that have been documented above) raise basic temperament/competency concerns, and bluntly, seeing just the evidence that has come up even this soon into the report makes it clear that the community is overdue in putting the full breaks on this behaviour. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::: For the record, I don't "own" any articles, nor have I stopped anyone from doing anything. I don't even have that ability: I'm not an admin, I don't revert-war, and these are all cherry-picked quotes form thousands of talk page discussion about content, content disputes. I've written, rewritten, and edited thousands of articles over decades now in collaboration with thousands of editors. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Well, I for one am amenable, in principle, to the argument that these are outlier behaviours. But if I am perfectly honest, the degree to which you are minimizing the issues raised, here and below, does not do a lot to ease my concerns. You don't need to wield the ban hammer as an admin in order to actively disrupt a topic area through the consistent denigration of the ability of others to constructively contribute to an area, based on your subjective assessment of their abilities and suppositions about their bona fides and backgrounds. Which we are seeing a lot of evidence of here. Granted, some of those reports are stale. But others are not, and you have been here for far too long to plead ignorance as to the community's stance on such behaviour. {{pb}}Now, I'm cognizant that I don't have direct editorial experience with you to contextualize the complaints, but even without that personal element, it has not escaped my notice that this is not your first time rubbing up against the threshold of community expectations regarding gatekeeping and a hostile disposition towards discussion during disputes, as evidence by previous reports at AE, here, and AN3. And even if we were to restrict our analysis to this report, there is pretty substantial documentation of some significantly problematic behaviour vis-a-vis, at a minimum, WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:STONEWALL, and possibly WP:CANVAS. That's quite a package to be hauling into talk space repeatedly, even if I take for granted your position that these are each, as a statistical matter, behaviours found only in a small fraction of your overall interactions. If nothing else, there is at least a recurrent pattern here of needlessly inflammatory tone during disputes and at least occasional proclivity to flood and dominate discussions. {{PB}}And let me be clear about my motivation in commenting here: I would just as soon preserve your purported subject matter expertise (in areas for which, believe me, I recognize the need). That said, it cannot come at the cost of allowing you to continue to think that you can use that expertise (and/or high-volume, rhetorically aggressive strategies) as a cudgel in disputes, in the manner you apparently seem comfortable with right now. I'm taking the time to say this to you as someone uninvolved in the underlying disputes because I hope it will convince you of what this situation looks like to such a community member. It is very difficult to substantiate a "Yes, I occasionally do these things, but proportionally not very often" position, and even if you could, it would be, at best, a very imperfect approach to alleviating the particular concerns raised here. I think you would do better to consider acknowledging some of the issues and the need to adjust your approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::What you're seeing here are cherry-picked quotes, devoid of context, from a few aggrieved parties (and those they've found by digging through my edit history and pinging to summon here to pile on their anger) who are emphasizing and inflating how they feel they've been wronged while avoiding discussing their own actions. It's a one-sided approach intended to do something, anything, to keep me from, say, talking about sourcing, which we're all supposed to do.

:::::For example, there's a diff from last year that the OP found from Mami Wata. While obscure outside of certain subcultural circles, this article is a constant target for scrubbing and ideological drive-by editing, and I've been instrumental and keeping the article from going back to just outright, blatant historical revisionism, and keeping it grounded in WP:RS. At one point I even rewrote the article to align with GA requirements. Cherry picking a diff from that process, totally devoid of context, is just axe-grinding. Just look at the edit history of that article and see what it was then and what it was now (and it's an interesting topic, you may find), and repeated attempts at scrubbing.

:::::Now, the OP neglects to mention, for example, that they had totally misattributed a claim about the OED's etymology of bad and put it in the lead summary of the FA article, and this is the matter from which their apparently boiling bad blood stems. Nobody checked it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry but I bothered to do so]. As you can see there, eventually they admitted to not having access to the source at all (!), despite putting it in the article (and its introduction), but that bad blood has been there since. (I'd personally thank someone for correcting something I put in an article like that but that's just me.) Several editors took issue with the article's sourcing and this caused the OP to eventually make a featured article review but the editor has barely participated (link). There are a lot of examples like this and I am a stickler for sourcing (shouldn't we all be?), in part because I believe an article can always be improved.

:::::It is super easy to go through someone's edit history, cherry pick and selectively edit handful of quotes and make them look as bad as possible here, while leaving stuff out that, say, shows where the fuel to trawl through another user editor's edit history from 2016 onward like this is coming from.

:::::I'm lucky I wasn't gone for another week or two so that I could respond to these claims that so carefully selected to paint me as malicious as possible. To be clear, I cannot make anyone do anything here and I cannot magically make people with expertise in this or that area appear, but I think I can comment on the desire to have it when I am finding people inventing what linguistics sources say or avoiding complex etymologies crucial to an article on a historical linguistics topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:i have been mostly quietly watching this debacle for months, as it involves topics i'm interested in - i've written and deleted a lot of comments, because of how much of a time sink it'd be to get involved. i'd add here, regarding Bæddel/bædling, that numerous editors have taken issue with bloodofox's aggressive approach - SchroCat, UndercoverClassicist, Borsoka, Tim riley, AirshipJungleman29, among others (see these sections on the talk page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in particular). these editors haven't taken issue with the concept that an FA can be improved upon, especially by a subject-matter expert, they are pushing back on bloodofox's particular edits and their battering-ram attitude. bloodofox is simply not interested in listening to constructive criticism. i think this can be effectively contrasted with their interactions with ImaginesTigers at Talk:Odin, where bloodofox shuts down all of the suggested changes with more condescension and aspersions (1, 2, 3, etc.). at Bæddel/bædling they say {{tq|nobody needs to ask for permission to add and correct WP:RS [...] A healthy, functional system would welcome improvements and additional sources to articles that make it to FA rather than discourage them.}} (link) that's true - ImaginesTigers did not need permission to improve the Odin article (which is not an FA) but they chose to discuss and propose changes on the talk page beforehand, only to be met with walls of text denigrating not only their work, but their competence. a pretty clear double standard, in my view. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 02:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am just reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&oldid=1294994441 the talk page as of right now] and I have to say bloodofox comes off terribly. The entire talk page is:

:# bloodofox: "This page is terrible! It should never have passed FA! I'm going to totally rewrite it to get it into a usable state!"

:# Everyone else: "We don't know what you're talking about, your demands don't make sense in context, your attempts to rewrite everything are only making things worse, please stop and discuss"

:# bloodofox (ignoring them): "This page is terrible! It should never have passed FA! I'm going to totally rewrite it to get it into a usable state!"

:(etc etc)

:If someone were to propose a pageban for bloodofox at Bæddel and bædling I would not hesitate to support it. And if they do this regularly I'd probably support more sweeping sanctions too. Loki (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am one of several who have taken issue with sourcing on the page. In fact, there are several of us discussing a variety of issues with the page, especially its sources, right here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh I was well aware of that FAR when I said what I said. What actually happened is that you had to be dragged to any kind of consensus forming mechanism other than either unilaterally rewriting the article or complaining about it, and then when that happened some other people agreed with you. But you don't get any credit for that, because it didn't happen because of anything you did.

:::That honestly just makes me think your previous behavior was even worse: if it was motivated by worries that a broader consensus might be even more clearly against you that's still bad but understandable. But instead, it was helpful for the position you were trying to argue, which means you were just being stubborn for no good reason.

:::This looks to me to be a classic case of WP:BRIE: whether or not what you say is right, if what you're actually doing about it is directly counterproductive to the goal you're trying to accomplish you're not actually improving the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. Loki (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, you might add the result of "Featured Article Review" to your summary above. And that's a pretty vicious response to a straightforward talk page discussion about sourcing between several people. Me initiating discussion led to the FAR, which I discovered after being gone a while. I'm now sure how it's "counterproductive" to find and discuss and ideally correct sourcing matters, especially on an FA. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Having expert contributors like Bloodofox who are actually willing to put the work in and repeatedly correct errors added by uninformed editors is genuinely incredible. Bloodofox's sometimes forceful tone is unsurprising given what he's forced to put up with in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia while getting basically nothing in return. Other expert editors like Austronesier have spoken of their frustration of having to repeatedly deal with uninformed editors. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Austronesier&diff=prev&oldid=1285839371] People who write bad work deserve to be forcefully criticised for it, no matter if it has gone through a flawed FAC process. Bloodofox really knows what he's talking about and it would be a great loss to the encyclopedia to lose him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::That's rather begging the question, don't you think? As has been well-established in this thread, most editors who've looked at this situation, including those with subject-matter expertise, think that there is no glaring issue with the article in question. Rather, Bloodofox has been insisting up and down that the whole article is biased because of activist editors and activist sources, and has decided it is beneath him to provide any evidence for these claims. Instead, we are apparently supposed to take his word for it that he knows better than everyone else who's analyzed the sources. I'm not sure what leads you to conclude that he is the one protecting Wikipedia from inaccuracies here, when the weight of opinions among participants in the content dispute suggests that he is in fact trying to remove well-sourced material. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Tamzin is completely right here, but even then, the whole premise of what {{u|Hemiauchenia}} says is wrong. No, editors who write "bad" content do {{em|not}} deserve to be treated uncivilly -- every expert editor started out as a novice one. On {{green|what he's forced to put up with in order to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia while getting basically nothing in return}} -- we're all volunteers; we all sign up to putting our work in and getting nothing, except warm fuzzy feelings, in return. We all come across work that we don't think is up to snuff, and editors that we don't think have the same expertise as we do. In those situations, we must be kind, civil, and collegial. That is policy and pillar: if an editor fails to abide by it, no amount of expertise is an excuse. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Bloodofox can be an irascible curmudgeon. He is also an editor of almost incalculable value to mythology and linguistics. That is an area that I often browse but dare not edit. It is gratifying to see someone as passionate as he is about accuracy and precision. Does he sometimes take things a little too personally? Sure. By the same token, some of his interlocutors could stand to take his objections for what they are, and not let themselves get wound up. We’re all here for the same purpose at the end of the day. Riposte97 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged at this discussion. I agree with Generalissima. Being frank, I'm involved in 2 disputes with bloodofox right now and both have been among the worst editing experiences of my time here. bloodofox is not interested, at all, in collaboration, unless you agree with them. The stuff about the FAR sucks but honestly, it wasn't my fight, so I was able to approach it with some distance and not get too wound up. But I have been working, since April, on a complete rewrite of Odin (see it at my sandbox). Since April I have left Talk updates concerning my approach and progress. It was completely silent until he turned up, within a week of our FAR exchange, to tell me how much it sucks. It doesn't suck: it removes excessive primary sourcing; provides actual, excellent scholarship. At every possible turn, they was condescending, rude, and uncivil. I tried to keep a cool head; you can decide whether I did: Talk:Odin#Update on proposal. I'll even poison the well against myself: they describe my responses as {{Tq|vindictive}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294968259 diff], for what I don't know—I started work on this months before learning who they were); they tell me to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294972215 stop wasting time with this nonsense]" (the nonsense is in question: doubling the references; 30+ explanatory footnotes acknowledging complexity; tens of hours of loving labour on a cool project that excited me).

• I believe the best summary I can provide of the goal-post moving, unwillingness to collaborative, and poor grasp of the material is my most recent response.
• Edit: I’ll let others decide whether bloodofox’s latest response actually responds to the demonstration of goalpost moving (see WP:Bring me a rock). Obviously I don’t think so but there’s no point in me responding.

:They edited this later to "this defensive nonsense" (current), which is not better—how do you respond anything but defensively when someone is condescending to you with no idea what your qualifications are? Subtle hints of theirs—{{Tq|There are scholars on this site, although they prefer to remain anonymous}}—but hostile to even the idea that I might want feedback from an expert (there's nothing in my sandbox cited to "Scholar I Emailed"?). My plan was to take it to GA and then FAC, where it would obviously be reviewed thoroughly. Right now, they believe {{Tq|the current article has been revised and reviewed many times over, including my editors who are experts in this topic}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294884520 diff]; originally written as {{Tq|Again, everything here is air-tight}}, which I think is very defensive concerning a suggestion that content needs further improvement).

VeryRarelyStable pinged me with this message: {{Tq|@ImaginesTigers Welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294895600 diff]) when the discussion started. Not a great sign from the start.

Some examples from the discussion (linked at the top of my post).

• {{Tq|We're not here to mislead the public.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294884470 diff]): Subtly indicating that I am, in fact, here to mislead the public)
• {{Tq|Honestly, you need to be far more familiar with this material before getting into a dispute about any element of it.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294966446 diff]): My responses are long because they are wrong, but the topic is complex. An introduction from Faulkes does not override PCRN consensus.
• {{Tq|If you were familiar with the material}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294966446 diff]): More condescension. I am, but it's none of anyone's business, and we should be focusing on material, not editors.
• {{Tq|Again, anyone who has read Ynglinga saga knows}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294884876 diff]): More condescension. Obviously implying something about me (i.e., rephrasing this as {{tq|This editor hasn't read Ynglinga saga}} would be a personal attack}} If someone picked up work on an important article in my area, I would never write comments like these. Frankly, it feels like trying to make me angry was the point—either that or there is just no grasp of collaborating to improve content.

One of the great things about Wikipedia is meant to be collaborating with others and improving content. I genuinely love being told when I am wrong. bloodofox is argumentative, abrasive, and the prospect of collaboration seems to make them mad if you have different views than theirs, or challenge theirs. It feels like they want people to exhaust folks so they'll leave him and their content alone, when all of Wikipedia needs improvement: my goal is the destruction of my purpose. I saw their responses on Talk:Odin as Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and WP:Ownership when I was responding. I did not even slightly focus on that when responding to him (he still thought I was "vindictive")—I focused entirely on their arguments, spending time to respond with quoted scholarship, and they repeatedly cite their interpretations of primary sources. (I asked him not to twice: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294947018 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294947018 here]). Baselessly accuses me of {{Tq|downplaying the historical record}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOdin&diff=prev&oldid=1294870080 diff])—if you are interested (and it is interestingly), please compare the mainspace and sandbox versions on the historical record (Live; Sandbox). An explicit goal with my rework was to {{Tq|support all information currently on the page and much more}}.

After feeling pretty driven this morning, I felt more dejected as the day went on. I was in the middle of choosing which wikibreak template to put up when I got pinged to this. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:First, the reason is involved in "two disputes" with me is because this editor has been following me around on a bunch of articles and injecting themselves in response to me into them, typically (but not always entirely) in disagreement (beyond Odin, where they probably first encountered me, there was recently Bæddel and bædling and now the Braucherei move discussion). Not sure exactly what that is about as I only vaguely recalled the user's name, but I'm suspecting Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, and we'd probably interacted before at some point in the past.

:Anyway, rather than contribute to it, right now the user aims to replace our current Odin article with a draft they're writiong (although the current article has been reviewed, added to, and edited by many, many editors without any major issue). As the article has no apparent issues that an expansion can't fix, it's perplexing why this is.

:And to be clear, I am just one of several authors of our Odin article. I pointed out a bunch of issues in the draft, some of them quite major, referred the editor to some crucial sources, and the reaction has been increasingly hostile. However, they were pinged by the OP to come here to pile on and so here we are reading a bunch of cherry-picked quotes. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Respectfully, this stalking allegation only exists in your head and shows you can't AGF. I posted at Odin in April 2025; my first response to you was at the FAR was on 5 June 2025. It would be more compelling for me to argue that you followed me to Odin after our exchange at FAR ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1294869914 June 10]), but it assumes extraordinary bad faith so I didn't make that argument.

:: These are unfalsifiable allegations. Obviously I can't prove I wasn't following you around and you can't prove the reverse, but I feel the timeline paints the opposite picture. Instead, my descriptions of your conduct evidence the things you said and how they made me feel; you haven't responded to any of those beyond trying to discredit me with allegations of stalking (above) and saying that {{green|This editor usually edits video game articles and things are a bit different}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295164370 here]). As highlighted by dozens of diffs by various participants, discrediting content positions by implying lack of qualification, or suggesting that you are uniquely qualified, is a frequent strategy for you.

::* I'm relatively confident I discovered Talk:Bæddel and bædling because of my previous collaborations with {{u|UndercoverClassicist}}. I probably saw the discussion through their contributions and, intrigued by allegations of an "activist source" (Routledge) My first post there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1288831929 providing a source to another editor] on May 2025, who was questioning about the source you repeatedly cited as problematic, because they couldn't access it, for which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1290404912 they thanked me]. We never interacted until the June FAR. Surely providing the source you are questioning is helpful to you! That you read bad faith into this—stalking and hounding!—does not reveal anything about me or support the extraordinary (probably indeffable) allegations you make here.

::* I don't understand why you're raising my response at the move request—I disclosed that this ANI thread alerted me to its existence ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMove_review%2FLog%2F2025_June&diff=1295160005&oldid=1295141346 diff]). I don't understand how is different, for example, to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295137695 an editor offering you support] here at ANI and then making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295147045 an appropriately disclosed post] at Talk:Odin. Wikihounding is an attempt to {{green|repeatedly confront or inhibit their work}}, but my move discussion vote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMove_review%2FLog%2F2025_June&diff=1295160005&oldid=1295141346 basically agrees with you]... You have a genuinely charmed conception of Wikihounding.

:: It is impossible for me to respond now with an assumption of good faith given the underlying faulty premise of my bad faith. It takes me ages to write a response but minutes for you to make baseless allegations (i.e., these editors are activists; this one's a canvasser; that one's unqualified; that one is both unqualified to edit and stalker) (cf. the diffs I have repeatedly cited). As was the case at Odin, I find it hard to see how engaging with you is productive. I believe the FAR shows a genuine good-faith effort by me to engage with participants, including positions that differ from mine ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FB%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling%2Farchive1&diff=prev&oldid=1294244948 e.g., here], where I was essentially advocating for your position (!) out of frustration that the debate was going on at FAR (wrong venue) and your unproductive manner of collaboration/consensus gathering. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Since I've been mentioned, I can attest to similar behaviour from bloodofox on mythology / folklore related articles on several occasions; especially on Norse mythology articles, but also, and earlier, this discussion and the following discussion at Talk:Phoenix (mythology) in 2019. Remarks from bloodofox in those discussions include:

:*{{tq|Unfortunately, as is all too often the case on the project, this has evidently awoken a revert-warrior watcher (in this case VeryRarelyStable), emerging from their slumber only to push aside core guidelines like WP:PROVEIT to aggressively reinsert all the accrued misinformation, misattributed material, and otherwise entirely unreferenced material...}}

:(Of note: bloodofox didn't just mention me here or use my username; they pinged me, to make sure I would see this comment.)

:*{{tq|Where are these users when the nonsense is inserted on to the article in the first place, I wonder?}}

:*{{tq|Did you read the Bennu section? Do you understand how the Bennu is so closely connected to the Greek concept of the Phoenix? How new are you to this subject? Are you familiar with the concept of the analogue in folklore studies, and what that means, exactly? Do you understand the crucial distinction between describing something as observed and not flatly stating it as fact, and why someone would do that? If not, please brush up on these topics before responding further, as otherwise you're wasting my time and yours.}}

:*{{tq|It seems that you've chosen to get into a dispute about the content of this article without being particularly familiar with the topic itself—why would you think that was a good idea?}}

:*{{tq|[quotes a side remark of mine] has to be one of the funniest unintentionally humorous quotes I've read on English Wikipedia over the past decade or so, I'll give you that.}}

:*{{tq|If you've scratched your edit-warring itch, I'll go ahead and start correcting the article. Otherwise we're going to need to elevate this, as I'm not keen on letting this article deteriorate into a bunch of ill-considered nonsense, and my Wikipedia time is limited—I'd rather not spend it explaining fundamentals to edit warriors.}}

:*{{tq|If you want to contribute to this article, start by finding a copy of the Van der Broek book used throughout this article. In the mean time, you're wasting your time — and mine.}}

:*{{tq|...please kindly take a break and return when you're calm.}}

:This should go without saying, but in case it doesn't: I'm not quoting these to relitigate the content dispute from six years ago, but to confirm others' observations of the level of incivility and discourtesy to which disputes with bloodofox can descend. I will admit I did not respond with perfect patience.

:My disagreements with bloodofox at the Norse mythology articles, much like ImaginesTigers', have centred chiefly on the issue of how to communicate effectively to Wikipedia's non-scholarly readership. As they stand, all these articles remind me of a molecular biologist I once met, who was tasked with teaching second-year dental students some molecular biology. Rather than simplify his subject, he threw postgraduate-level concepts at them for fifty minutes at a stretch and looked wearied beyond endurance when they struggled to follow. I gather he was in fact a world-leading researcher in his field, but his lecturing method did nothing to convey his knowledge to his students. All he did was baffle them.

:This is precisely why Wikipedia needs non-expert contributions as well as expert. Experts are closely familiar with their own subject matter, but that very familiarity blinds them to how unfamiliar that subject matter is to wider audiences. That is why I cannot countenance bloodofox's habitual insinuations that only experts in these subjects should be suffered to edit them.

:—VeryRarelyStable 05:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Seriously, you've been nursing this grudge since 2019? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_%28folklore%29&type=revision&diff=922768146&oldid=922767081 Back when you were doing spiteful stuff like this]? You were indeed edit-warring and inserting [http://gnosis.org/welcome.html stuff like this into the article], and the article is better because you ran into resistance and source quality pushback. I encourage editors to look at the whole discussion for context. This is another editor pinged from my edit history from the past decade eager to come and grind an axe (the whole paragraph was cited to Van der Broek's 1972 overview, btw). :bloodofox: (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't have too much to add here, but am in broad agreement with the points made by {{u|Generalissima}}, and with those made by {{u|ImaginesTigers}} and the summary offered by {{u|Sawyer777}}. I do think it's worth bringing up a repeated issue with asserting bold claims -- for instance, that an article's sourcing is terrible and (to quote above) "falsified", providing little or no evidence for them, and not engaging with discussion that suggests these concerns are (at best) rather overblown. Something strange seems to have happened on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1 the Baedling FAR] which means that I can't pull the diff, but see my comments there about Julius Zupitza -- this whole sourcing thing has hinged on a fairly tiny "error", which is no longer part of the article text, and Bloodofox has offered no evidence to substantiate the rather forceful accusations of sloppiness, dishonesty and so on that have followed. Similarly, they have refused to engage with several editors pointing them to appropriate means of addressing their concerns and getting consensus for the changes they want, while also complaining that nobody will allow them to do that. It's hard to see this all as good-faith behaviour, and even harder to see it as a net positive for the encyclopaedia. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Actually, we ended up in Featured Article Review, and the discussion there has continued, which is where you were pinged from. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry The "tiny error" was a total misattribution of a source on an FA that made no mention of a scholar, which the OP eventually admitted they didn't have access to]. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That linked page makes interesting reading -- once again, you have various editors advising you to discuss things in the appropriate forum, build consensus for proposed changes, and avoid making disputes personal. Even if you think you're right in the points of fact, that would certainly prompt me to think about the way I approach these things, especially given that it's the third or fourth page where different people are telling you exactly the same thing, and indeed now that we're at ANI. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Getting to FAR is in my opinion progress (which the OP initiated before going to ANI). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• All I can say as someone who participates in move review on a frequent basis that the section at Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten was completely unacceptable, especially considering move review was suggested very early on in the discussion. Closers sometimes get things wrong, and we have procedures to look at whether they are wrong - belittling a closer for their move is very serious indeed. Please note I have no other interaction with this user that I am immediately aware of. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Having just read through Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten, all I can say about the approach is 'wow...'. Staggering. Pinging {{u|Paine_Ellsworth}} as being the target for some of the rather unpleasant barbs thrown in that thread. - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|Honestly, while you've to date contributed nothing whatsoever to this or related articles, I will say you're probably one fo the single most condescending editors I've encountered on the site (and that's saying something).}} is pretty staggering, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :*I did find the editor to be extremely condescending and the editor did not contribute to the article, which I had just rewritten. As we see on this talk page, it's fine to tell an editor you find them condesending. I requested to know exactly what this editor's reasoning was for closing the vote and was met with, for example, sarcasm ("fine actually!"). Another editor recommended a move review, which I then initiated. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :*:Concerning {{purple|As we see on this talk page, it's fine to tell an editor you find them condesending}}. I disagree very strongly. At FAR, myself and others repeatedly requested you to stop bringing up conduct concerns outside of the appropriate venue (i.e., ANI) because it was a distraction and a waste of other's times—"I deserve to be mad because I once got a death threat" is obviously not a good discussion of content with reference to the FA criteria (the same stuff we see with Liz in this thread). Others did the same. You were rude and condescending (despite having the academic background you seem desperate to collaborate with), to I replied that you should explore that at ANI and not FAR. You ignored my request, and the request of a coordinator, and did it again (this is textbook bludgeoning).
• :*:You are either desperate to fight with others or can't help it. You repeatedly make reference to people as battlegrounders and then become inordinately mad when someone kindly disagrees (which, as we see here, is often). I even noted that your response strangely quoted my response to you but you responded, in line, to the comment about Essjay that I didn't repeat because you got so mad over something so minor.
• :*:It's a persistent notion, unique to you, that everyonen who disagrees with you is out to get you, as Tim riley said: {{green|This looks like a case of "Everybody's out of step except our Willie". I have reread the article and the FAC exchanges and see no reason to attempt to rewrite the text to accommodate the uncited assertions of one hitherto uninvolved editor}} (here). There is much more demonstrated interest from you overpowering others' views than gathering any sort of consensus. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :*::I would, BTW, recommend anyone diving into this mess to read Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten in its entirety. I was actually surprised at what an unpleasant read it was - and I'm 1,000% uninvolved - couldn't give a hootin' toot about the subject matter or the close. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :*:::The ensuring move review also fits the same pattern -- lots of uninvolved editors saying that, regardless of the facts of the case, Bloodofox's conduct was out of order. To me, it's becoming clear that social pressure and gentle persuasion are not proving enough for them to see this and make changes: I think the reply below to SnowRise is encouraging, but if their entire takeaway from this thing is "I need to stop asking people about their qualifications", they have missed the vast majority of the point. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :*::::I'll also point out that about an hour after they made that reply to SnowRise, they ended up defending the exact thing they'd just owned up to. not really sure what to make of that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{to|SchroCat}} thank you so much for the ping! Over years of closing discussions I've developed a pretty tough hide, so :bloodofox:'s comments, seemingly contrary to civility concerns, had no effect on me. We see here that such has come back to bite them unsurprisingly. I will only say that none of us know what has been going on behind the scenes over past weeks with our fellow editors, which should make AGFing a bit easier for us. I wish every editor here, to include :bloodofox:, a high-quality life and better and better times! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{ec}} I also have little to add to this, except to say that Bloodofox was—regardless of the rights or wrongs of his opinions on the Bæddel matter—overly aggressive and unpleasant to deal with. I had no history with the article or its FAC progress, but did see the threads on the talk page. When Bloodofox suggested the article should list all the uses of the word in Old English, I pointed out that this would be against WP:INDISCRIMINATE Bloodofox's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286186396 second response was to ask] "{{tq|Are you new to this kind of topic?}}", which is inappropriate when dealing with how content should be handled on WP, regardless of the topic. The aggressive responses included misleading comments, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286188804 outright] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286480210 lies] and the toxic approach of trying to bully people away from a subject by asking "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286481954 To clarify your understanding of this material, what is your background in linguistics?]" I had expressed no opinion on any of the substantive matters being discussed on the page, simply on whether having a list of uses of the word in English would be encyclopaedic unless it was accompanied by sufficient text to provide context that made the approach encyclopaedic. For trying to ensure the article kept within the bounds of what we would consider high-quality content, I was met with BATTLEGROUND reactions and a toxic approach that was repeated across several threads of the talk page towards several other editors. Anyone who didn't fall in line with Bloodofox's "suggestions" was attacked, which is completely inappropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It is fine to ask if someone is new to something and if they've got a background in the article's topic so that we can talk about sourcing. Now, you may take issue with my comments and criticisms all you like, but please don't falsely accuse me of lying. It is indeed true that these sources had not been checked before the article was passed through FA and that one of those sources was a major linguistics source on a linguistics article. I know not only because I personally began checking them but also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry because the OP and primary author eventually admitted that they never even had access to it in the first place]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodofox (talk • contribs) 08:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Given your toxic approach to discussions, I have no wish to have any further interaction with you, but I stand by what I have said and will repeat that when someone is pointing to the MOS about how inappropriate it would be to have an list of words without context, it's not a question of background in the topic, but how to best present what the sources say within the confines of the encyclopaedic approach outlined in the MOS. I am sorry that you are still unable to understand this, but I really do not wish to continue any discussion with you. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Accusing someone of lying is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. This is the second time I have experienced this editor make a bunch of accusations and then declare they will have no further discussion. But to be clear, nobody was proposing that we just list a bunch of words (??), rather it'd ideally be a typical paragraph with appropriate sourcing and discussion from relevant WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been briefly involved in Baeddel and Baedling. I get the sense that Bloodofox is probably right - but the amount of text means I would have to spend a considerable time just to understand the discussions, let alone do significant reading. In these types of situation it's really important to find an approach that allows all editors to engage. I think it unfortunate that this article is such a bone of contention, the subject "Alternative Sexualities in Early English Society" can't hang off the evidence from these two words, like reconstructing a dinosaur from one tooth. I hope that the article can be brought to a better state, but there will need to be a different, and less combative, approach. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC).

I've been here nearly 20 years and I have happily collaborated with thousands of editors on thousands of articles, including many GA articles. And I still write to those standards when I don't go through the process, like my recent total rewrite of the article Braucherei.

I have volunteered and continue to volunteer to write, rewrite, and make many thousands of edits over that time in typically underserved and often dense historical linguistics, folklore studies, and new religious moment topics. I've gladly improved thousands of articles related to these matters. Unfortunately, it's inevitable that axe-grinding from this or that editor who takes issue with my critiques of a source or their edit will pop up now and then. This typically involves going through my edit history, taking a bunch of quotes out of context (sometimes from years ago but often in exchanges they had no involvement in), and presenting them in the most ill-intentioned way possible.

I also sometimes (rather foolishly) work in hot-button topics, and rarely I'll get anonymous threats or, worse yet, editors very rarely will get so angry they try to stalk and harm me offline ([https://www.litromagazine.com/every-saturday-litro-magazine-publishes-essays-that-reach-far-beneath-the-surface/wrathful-wiccan-wikipedians/ like these two who attempted to get some random person totally unrelated to me fired from their job]. And all because I added secondary sources to Wikipedia discussing the academic Carl Raschke's involvement in the Satanic Panic).

So forgive me if I think that situations like these are in the scheme of things small potatoes. But do I wish these editors would be more forthcoming.

First, let's take a quick look at that mention of the AfD 2024. I had completely forgotten about it, but I guess this is a fishing trip, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sumarr_and_Vetr|so it bears pointing out that I was correct and the AfD was a snowball keep for exactly the reasons I pointed out]. In fact, the editor had not read the article and was not familiar with the material (surely an issue when trying to have the article deleted), which is why it was such a straightforward, snowball keep.

When it comes to {{ping|Generalissima}}, this is in reality just a content dispute over an article Generalissima wrote. The article made it to FA but it has a variety of big issues that I and several others have raised, and it is now in Feature Article review. There I provided a ton of edits and sources (edits that were mass-reverted by, for example, Generalissima, so it is weird to see this user complain about me using the talk page to discuss). I also immediately noticed that the Generalissima [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_475#Regarding_an_interpretation_of_an_OED_entry|had falsified a claim about a very important source for English etymology, the Oxford English Dictionary (they finally claimed "I don't have access to it and simply asked a friend")]. All indications are that none of the FA approvers checked it or a variety of other sources on the article. Now this editor is apparently out for my (ox)blood, so they're doing things like selectively discussing my involvement in the notorious Falun Gong article (for editors who have not had the (ahem) pleasure of editing in that minefield, at least one peer-reviewed article has discussed the new religious movement's former control of the article (Lewis 2018) and many an account has been blocked while attempting to push the Falun Gong's positions on that and related articles, like The Epoch Times and Shen Yun. Also super weird to see stuff from 2016 getting brought up here. It's depressing to realize that was a decade ago.

{{ping|ImaginesTigers}} wants to replace our current Odin article with one the editor is writing rather than contribute to our current one (which can always use expansion and to which many have contributed to and thoroughly checked). The editor is new to the topic and, unfortunately, their draft contains numerous odd and blatantly incorrect statements like "[Odin] is the only god among the æsir depicted as riding a horse". Recently, after far too much discussion that would have been resolved by just going to the (core) sources I suggested, the editor had to walk (trot?) it back, which I didn't think was a big deal, but it seems they did. This editor usually edits video game articles and things are a bit different when editing material with hundreds of years of scholarship behind it. I've found this editor to be quite hostile when asked to check this or that source instead (and they've a few times now made odd and unverifiable claims about interacting with this or that scholar off of Wikipedia), but who cares. Let's stick to the sources and get on to editing. (And for the record, the full quote of "stop wasting time with this nonsense" is actually "Please stop wasting time with this nonsense [that is, the false claim "[Odin] is the only god among the æsir depicted as riding a horse"] and just crack open Simek's handbook (and Lindow's handbook) and turn your eyes to the relevant entries like the rest of us do." On the upside, the editor finally did exactly that.)

In short, these are all content disputes. Rather than just working on the articles and sorting out whatever issue is being raised, these editors have invested a lot of time and effort going through my edit history to dig out quotes, often leaving out context (like the fact the Baucherei, an article I wrote, is in move review and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Archive_29#h-Proposed_title_change_of_article_Pow-wow_(folk_magic)_to_Braucherei-20250309012000 I was commenting on another editor's canvassing] — a situation that involves none of these editors and has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_June resulted in an ongoing move review]). I suggest instead focusing on improving content in dispute rather than cherry picking a bunch of quotes and trying to drag anyone I ended up having a disagreement with over the past who knows how many years here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, Bloodofox, since you have decades of experience, what is a way to keep content disputes from becoming personal? How can we critique content and sources without editors, themselves, feeling criticized? It's a cliche but how can we keep this about content and not our contributors? Since this is a recurring problem that comes up on ANI all of the time, any ideas that any editor has would be welcome here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::For me, it's especially a tough one when editors outright invent sources, I discover it, and then they don't want to talk about sourcing (like the OP) or demonstrate a lack of familiarity with a topic but insist they're doing it their way (happens).

::Honestly, the best answer to: "Are you new to this topic?" Is just yes or no, because then we can work with that. If someone asked me if I were new or unfamiliar with something, I'd honestly answer it because why not? We're ideally both working on an article and sharing sources.

::To be clear, I know nothing about these people, and given my disturbing experiences here with people actively trying to harm me "IRL" for daring to add fully BLP-compliant WP:RS about them, I very strongly encourage - outright urge - people to not tell anyone who they are or provide any kind of specifics about their background beyond being extremely vague. However, it can be useful to just say, hey, I know this topic super well and I recommend this, or hey, I could use some more resources on this topic because I feel I could get a firmer grounding, so what do you have?

::None of it is personal. When people are clear where they're at and it's a topic I do know, I can get them sources, but if not, it is just an obstacle course where we're on the talk page for too long and for no good reason. Typically the article benefits from the heightened source scrutiny but some editors outright take it personally and can carry a grudge for quite a long time (meanwhile, having been here so long and focused so intensely on the articles, I have often forgotten their user names). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, I didn't know about any threats that have come your way. I've had my share of abuse over the years and threats but it's the cliche, comical internet variety where it seems like the other person is 12 years old and is getting their phone taken away and just screaming at you. Nothing that caused me to feel like I'm actually in personal danger. If it did, it would color my experience here. But back to editing. I don't wonder a lot if people are telling me the truth, call me naive but I take folks at their word and generally it works out. Plus, I don't like living my life as a cynical person, it makes the experience of being an editor on Wikipedia less enjoyable and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Tomorrow is another day, more pages to review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC

::::Yes, it probably impacts me more than I realize. Check out the Raschke stuff above as an example, and compare it to the talk page, if you find it interesting. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, two things here, BOO:

::::1) It doesn't seem from the diffs presented that you are so much asking the question about their familiarity so much as speculating wildly about it, based on your assessment of their apparent facility with the given subject. Now, there may be some selection bias in the diffs presented here in that respect, but even if we take the leap and presume there is, you're still making bold, un-sought-after, and unflattering guesswork assessments on some occasions.

::::And 2) even if you were asking the question consistently, it is likely to be perceived by most of your fellow editors as a territorial and tedious behaviour. These are the types of questions that most editors learn to avoid long before 20 years. No answer to that question directly influences any editorial decision that is going to be made, so it is likely to be ascribed to being a cheap rhetorical ploy to undermine another editor's standing. Let's also AGF and give you the benefit of the doubt that this is always all about you just trying to get a bearing on your fellow editors, despite it happening in the context of existing disputes. Even if we grant you that presumption, I can tell you it certainly is not coming off that way, especially the way you seem to time and word them. {{pb}}And I am telling you this as an uninvolved party looking at these instances dispassionately after the fact; to those people who are actually interacting with you in these instances, those same comments certainly can't look any less like a challenge to the legitimacy of the ability to contribute of other parties who have offered positions contrary to your own. If I am perfectly honest, Ox, these comments look like nothing quite so much as an invitation to a keyboard warrior dick measuring contest in what should be a no-dick zone--and an effort to argue from authority.

:::So maybe just shelve this habit, especially as a threshold way of entering into dispute resolution. You don't need to know about their backgrounds, much less guess at them. You don't have the prerogative to be assured as to their level of expertise. You should be assessing their arguments, same as you would advance your own: on the merits of the strength of the arguments, based on policy, sourcing, and pragmatics. Please leave all of this extraneous assessment out of it. Aside from the fact that it focuses on the wrong things and makes you look a lot more petty than you apparently realize, if we take your protestations for granted, there are lots of reasons why various editors do not like to get into personal disclosures of even the vague sort on project. As someone who keeps citing off-project harassment as a reason we should consider this situation a comparatively trivial matter, I would think you would have more robust respect for these. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, you're right. I appreciate the measured and uninvolved feedback from you here. I'll do that. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you: I appreciate the observation being taken in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

: Response: Usually, I'd be shocked if an ANI subject, in response to a thread outlining their history of condescension, belitting and aspersions, said {{purple|This editor usually edits video game articles}}, but I'm not. You literally can't stop condescending. (At least at ANI I can defend myself rather than wasting others' time with it at FAR, as I had to remind you twice there: I have produced 1 video game FA, as my first experiment in editing, about 5 years ago; my latest FA was Dracula. My degrees—in fact no one's degrees—are any of your business for very good reason Attacking an editor's hobbies is a bizarre line of defence.)

:* You say this is a content dispute, but the content dispute is in the place it belongs—a Talk page—and as it is a dispute I obviously reject your characterisation. The extraordinary focus on the content disputes here conveniently avoids the concerns regarding your unique style of collaboration. The closest thing to an acknowledgement of your conduct problems (cf. every diff above) subtly shifts blame away from you and onto {{purple|hot-button topics}}. It isn't the topics that are hot-button, bloodofox. Your responses everywhere here are WP:IDHT. Your arguments at FAR are WP:IDLI.

:* Your example of work at Braucherei is an illuminating one, I think, because 1) you edited it alone and 2) the moment Paine expressed gratitude, you attacked them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABraucherei&diff=1293715963&oldid=1291065082 first diffs]) and later drew ire from multiple participants. SnowFire, who agreed with your content position (!), said of your conduct: {{green|I would suggest that a respectful challenge on grounds of no consensus for the new title would be far more likely to succeed than a dramatic, assume-bad-faith, denunciation of the closer}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1294104893 diff]); another wrote {{green|we don’t need to assume bad faith or anything underhanded. There are procedures for appealing. Follow them. We don’t need to get nasty}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1294911045 diff]). This doesn't cover the individuals accusing you of bludgeoning and casting aspersions there, too. Your comments that Netherzone and others are activists are reminiscent of the AE warning you received. In what way is this a good example of positive collaboration? It proves the opposite: fine when allowed free reign; terrible the moment another editor is involved.

::* IMO, the unwillingness to use Wikipedia's processes (i.e., SnowFire and Pain's suggestions above) is a major problem here of wasting editor's time with disputes you don't want to move forward unless it is your way (cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-AirshipJungleman29-20250418105200-UndercoverClassicist-20250418104000 this comment] from AirshipJungleman29). At FAR, I spent time outlining appropriate dispute resolution methods for 5 possible complaints in 2 posts (e.g., here; please CTRL+F "RFC" or "DRN" or "RSN" on that page); as did {{u|UndercoverClassicist}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FB%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling%2Farchive1&diff=prev&oldid=1294045724 diff]). You ignored these, instead arguing and accusing others of {{purple|blockading}} you. (I even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Bæddel_and_bædling/archive1#c-ImaginesTigers-20250606072400-Bloodofox-20250605213200 tried to advocate for your position] with another editor to try and move things forward.) You obstructed the resolution of your own dispute...

:* You called my responses "vindictive" at Talk:Odin and, at FAR, told me I wrote a {{purple|response aimed at critiquing me personally}} because I gently indicated the problems I'd worry about if I brandished my credentials within Wikipedia (i.e., the Essjay comment you described as an attack and asked me to {{purple|strike and refactor}}. I didn't strike or refactor them; I stand by them. I have done nothing but demonstrate civility in trying to understand your concerns. I wouldn't be drawn into a conversation about editorial conduct at FAR because it would waste others' time. Now, we're now at the appropriate venue for you to apologise or defend your statements. Your conduct at FAR towards me is obviously unrelated to Odin because you did most of this before replying to Odin.

: Incidentally, I want to be really clear: you did not initiate the FAR despite the suggestion to the contrary ({{purple|It is now at FAR}}); the nominator of this thread did, in my view with immense dignity, given your bludgeoning of the Talk... that gathered no consensus for a single change after a discussion with >11 participants (!). (Regarding the OED correction: it was, as others noted, a tiny issue that you overblew, as others noted, to make a wider point. You then kept going on about it well after the edition was fixed... because it's not about the content.) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:: As an aside. The allegations above about canvassing (here) are useful indicators of your style of collaboration, and sit within a broader pattern of bad behaviour in my opinion. As I said in my initial post: {{purple|bloodofox is not interested, at all, in collaboration, unless you agree with them}}. You frequently ping editors who will support you [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250605000000-Generalissima-20250604002100 here] at Talk:Bæddel and bædling. Your post to RSN obviously poisoning the well (diff), which you were repeatedly called out for. It is hard for me to see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295183727 this edit to Talk:Odin] as anything but the same attempt at disrupting consensus gathering through discussion and dispute resolution. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::So I have a background with Norse mythology. It's one of those things you can't help but stumble across if you're an art critic with interests in both fantasy literature and political extremism who was raised by an anthropology professor. I will not be commenting about articles brought up here outside of those. But after reviewing the links provided what I will say is that :bloodofox: is effectively entirely correct regarding the literature at the articles in this set. I've also participated in edit discussions with :bloodofox: going years back with regard to articles about Norse mythology and about cryptids and what I've observed is that they have had a consistently sharp tongue. I'm sympathetic to the WP:CIV complaints and I do think it would be wise of :bloodofox: to take that feedback under advisement, to improve their adherence to WP:FOC and to avoid insulting other editors. However I think that there's a fair bit of over-egging of the problem here. While it's true that, on Wikipedia, being right isn't sufficient, I'd argue that being politely wrong is also insufficient. For an expert in the material, issues like treating the prose edda and the poetic edda as if they were the same work is such an elementary mistake that I can certainly also sympathize with :bloodofox:'s frustration in these circumstances. Wikipedia does not demand that editors be experts in their field to participate but, on the other foot, it should probably avoid chasing away experts just because they have sharp tongues. I would suggest an appropriate closure here would be a logged warning to adhere to WP:CIV and no more. A tban would be inappropriate because :bloodofox: contributes valuably in this set. A block would also be overkill. I would say that no boomerangs should also come out of these threads. We're supposed to be polite to each other here and raising civility complaints should not be actionable disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::And on another foot, if this were a three-legged race, Wikipedia should probably avoid chasing away us regular folk, because of an expert with a sharp tongue, which appears is what has been happening. 2¢ to spare by Isaidnoway (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's in the "spin" we put on things... is it just a bit of a "sharp tongue", which some editors might see as "tough love"? or is it blatant breakage of WP:5P4, one of WP's 5 pillars? Stay with this reference work long enough and you'll see the entire spectrum between those two extremes. I look forward to reading the closer's statement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::You yourself said you had a thick skin, which you clearly needed in your encounter. Sharp tongue or overbearing rudeness, bludgeoning and intellectual bullying? That's not meant as a WP:PA, it's the issue at the heart of all of this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think, for me, what it comes down to is that sanctions are not supposed to be punitive but rather preventative. Do we think that :bloodofox:'s uncivility is sufficiently disruptive to require prevention? Based on the above discussion my tendency is to say no. Which is why I prefer a logged warning here. I've edited in articles they're active in long enough to recognize they don't always uphold WP:5P4 the best- but they have been a critical asset to the maintenance of WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. A logged warning would send the message to :bloodofox: that they need to make a change with regard to how they handle WP:CIV without risking losing the clear value they bring to the project. This is, in my opinion, an appropriate response because it acknowledges the problem and takes a step to prevent it from reoccurring without dipping into punishment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I favor the same approach as you Simon, though I do think we need to be careful in how we frame it if we realistically want the result to be a change in approach without the need for a sharper sanction. Personally, while I sympathize with the concerns of the impacted parties here, including the sense that there has been some WP:IDHT/equivocating/rationalizing going on from :boo: in this discussion, I don't think a TBAN or CBAN block is appropriate at this point. But this is primarily because I feel that in cases where the community has been dilatory in making a firm statement of disapproval of such conduct to a specific editor in specific circumstances, it is problematic to come at them all at once with the forestalled implications of the previous subpar behaviour that they were not previously adequately warned about in a discussion like this, involving people other than whom they were in dispute with. But the reason I favour a warning is not because I think :boo:'s conduct has never met the threshold of being significantly disruptive: it looks to me like it clearly has done so, at times. {{pb}}Regardless, there's a real danger here in not being plain spoken with :boo: about the shortfall between their conduct and community expectations. Editors with their particular pattern of interaction and self-justification are already battling against an internal image which convinces them that they are simply "brusque, in a no-nonsense, cut-through-the-bull manner" and only fall afoul of community ire because they are "all too wiling to call a spade for a spade". And they will typically seize upon the least bit of community indulgence of such perspectives as a matter of confirmation bias, no matter how slight that support is, relative to community complaints.{{pb}} There's already been a small bit of this in this thread, including in your second-to-last post, and good-faith and honest though I know those observations to be, I do not believe they are what :boo: needs to be hearing right now, if we want to maximize the potential for a logged warning to be sufficient and avoid their being back here for a more substantial sanction in the future, after a lot more unnecessary incivil commentary borne by other editors rubbing shoulders with them in talk space. The overhaul in :boo:'s approach needs to be substantial to avoid that outcome, and they need to internalize that this project is a workspace--a volunteer workspace, yes, but a workspace all the same--and that casual belittling of their colleagues' perspetives is just not acceptable, no matter what they believe the benefits to the project of their unfiltered commentary would be. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And for the record, I do see indications above that :boo: is able and willing to make these adjustments. The fact that they continue to be defensive about their past conduct does not necessarily mean that they are burying their head in the sand. We all create for ourselves narratives about our past actions, so even when someone concedes that they should be doing something differently, it can be another matter entirely to agree to someone else's interpretation of past actions. Afterall, they will reasonably feel that they are the only one who has direct access to memories about their past mental state. That's just human nature, and I would ask that the people here complaining about :boo:'s past behaviour keep that in mind. But for those of us who have not had conflicts with :boo:, whom they may be more willing to hear an assessment from, I think we should be presenting a common front to the extent that we agree a change is in order, and not appear to give the impression that we are saying "change your approach, please.....unless you are really, really sure you are in the right and the other parties are being goobers." SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yeah that's fair. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Expanding just a little on "yeah that's fair" I do think a logged warning is important because it says "next time this happens we'll know you have been warned". I don't think incivility is appropriate and it is often counter-productive because "this edit is wrong" is a lot less of a blow than "you are a moron," and usually leads to less entrenchment. However I've been doing a lot of thinking about how Wikipedia handles situations of conflict and am increasingly of the opinion we are being too hasty with blocks.

:::::::::::There are exceptions of course: bigotry, sock puppetry, vandalism and unrepentant disruption are things that are inimical to this project. But, for smaller issues, (especially editors who are good at what they do but are also rude, editors who are productive in most areas but have sore points where they struggle to collaborate and editors who make mistakes early on but are open to advice on correcting those mistakes) I think logged warnings, topic bans and page blocks should be used (basically in that ascending order, as relevant) should be attempted before pulling out the big guns. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yes, I go back and forth on the question of how we handle blocks in community discussions. Honestly, I'm not sure I've ever settled on whether we over- or under-applying them, because the situation can be so idiosyncratic, especially here at ANI: one user who should have been put into cool down much earlier can go years evading serious penalties for chronic personal attacks and disruption, and another can get nailed with a sanction for blowing their lid once in a stressful scenario. Nor is it as simple as the more established editors being the ones to avoid action: that is a factor at times, but that's an oversimplification. A lot of it just happens to do with who is around for the discussion and what has recently been going on in the community. All of which is a long-winded way of saying, I agree with you: short of shackling ourselves to an inflexible set response, we should have a general escalating approach, and logged warnings are a reasonable starting place. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::To briefly interject: the reason I suggested a page block above is because I think hyper-narrow blocks like that can function as essentially a warning while also concretely solving the problematic behavior in the short term.

:::::::::::::If the issue right now is bloodofox's behavior on one specific page then blocking them from that page both fixes the immediate problem and signals to bloodofox that there is a problem with their behavior while not really impacting their editing much in the bigger picture. I'm worried that a pure warning is unlikely to solve the issue at that page, because that particular bridge has already been burned and everyone there now has strong opinions not just about the underlying dispute but about each other. Loki (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That's a reasonable position too. For my part, I'm not sure I am satisfied that it is necessary in the sense of WP:PREVENTATIVE. I'm by no means saying I can't see why others might feel otherwise, but there are times where my gut says 'give them the opportunity to try". It's true that tailored subject matter bans can redirect and preserve the useful contributions of a user who has shown a lack of restraint in particular circumstances. But I'm not sure it very often succeeds in helping a user to evolve past previous issues, which is a much more desirable outcome, imo. By which I mean not that they agree to obey community standards in some respect, but that they are won over to the reasoning behind them.{{pb}}I just think that a user like that is going to be more enthused for their work, and more at peace with their fellow volunteers than one that is being kept in line via restrictions and threat of further restrictions. For those reasons, if I see even just a small handful of concessions and a glimmer of effort to adjust, that's usually enough to move me to WP:ROPE territory, especially if we're talking about something like a first focused ANI thread. There's a lot of people here presenting very similar stories, a non-trivial proportion of whom have said some variation of "one of the most dispiriting experiences I have had on the project", so I'm not going to pretend I don't see why some are calling for concrete measures. And more to the point, I hope Ox is hearing that. But for all of that my inclination is towards giving them a chance to make the necessary adjustments without forcing the issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Given the problems with the behaviour cover more than one page, I think a targeted block from the page means ROPE is still very much 'in play' for every other nexus of dispute, while stopping one of the (current and active) problems. It seems to be an ideal middle ground that solves an immediate problem and acts as a warning for the future (as well as starts the clock on the possibly-increasing length and breadth of blocks for any future problematic behaviour. At both the Bæddel and Braucherei pages, their approach and behaviour has been beyond the pale, but we have the opportunity to stop one of those right now with a firm warning in the shape of a page block. Generalissima is right when they say "but I was right" has never been a defence. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{reply|SchroCat}} I won't weigh in on what sanctions are appropriate but I will offer my perspective my editorial concerns, with examples from bæddel and bædling. My concerns go beyond that page, though.

::::::::::::::::* There's persistent hostility, or simply ignorance, towards dispute resolution and substantive discussion. That prolongs bitter fights, which are only bitter on his part... and in any instance where the other party did lose their cool, he benefits from assumed higher credibility. Editors have exercised extraordinary patience and maintained a focus on content and sources, while he has never once proposed a change for discussion or offered meaningful rebuttal sources (in my view he believes he shouldn't need to)—this goes beyond just making an argument from authority into outright dangerous territory.

::::::::::::::::* See this Talk post: {{purple|Is there a reason this article doesn't even mention the matter of toponyms? I added this material only for it to be mass reverted [...] Anyone with the slightest familiarity with this topic will encounter discussion of this important matter and yet it is not here}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1293718237 diff]). He's referring to his addition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286169405 a dictionary listing] when he knows the onus for inclusion is on him—i.e., if it's important, it'd be trivially easy to provide a source supporting that. We know he knows this because on his User talk we see his request for {{purple|some WP:RS to add outlining any activist history related to the words, that sounds very interesting}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=prev&oldid=1286586520 diff]) for his other argument. Consider his edit summary that states {{purple|the vast amount of discussion on this topic comes from linguists discussing this word in connection with the word "bad"}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1294873905 diff]). In my view he's interpreting what is important to scholarship based on the existence of some scholarship, and seeks to frame articles around that without providing sources to that effect, on an obviously contentious topic. This makes the subtle claims of expertise even more dangerous because it forms part of the argument for inclusion.

::::::::::::::::No editor’s contributions are so strong that they’re worth scaring off eager collaborators. Why change that behaviour when it’s obviously effective in driving people like me away from an area that can benefit from more people? While his feedback is fundamentally hostile and unactionable, his voice is simply too big—not just because he summons folks predisposed to agreeing with him but, again, the hostile approach to consensus gathering and the subtle indications of expertise). Not to mention my goalpost moving concerns. He leverages subtly implied expertise, condescension and disparagement over meaningful collaboration and engagement precisely to exhaust others and drive them away. He got what he wanted in that respect – I'll stay away from all Norse/Germanic religion content.

::::::::::::::::Finally I can't support that there's any contrition here given his ABF and unevidenced allegations that I am stalking and hounding him; these were straightforwardly contradicted but obviously at great cost to my time. I think discrediting is a persistent content dispute strategy for him, as we see at the Move request (e.g., citing WP:RGW [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295309280 22 times] and calling editors activist canvassers). It's reminiscent to the reason he got AE warned for guessing people's religions IMO (assuming bad faith). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Frankly, their defensiveness and the tendency for people to try and wave away personal attacks makes me very cynical that there will be a change in behavior without something being done. bloodofox has been here almost as long as the site has, people have brought up this behavior before, they know exactly the courtesy expected of editors: defending personal attacks with "but I was right about that!" is not acceptable, it has never been acceptable, and is honestly a more telling indicator about their approach than the insults themselves. ` Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Your positions are not unreasonable, but here's the issue with getting a satisfactory result here, as I see it: a TBAN is going to be very difficult to secure, because while some of the behaviour is linked to specific topics, I think we can agree the issue is more with approach to conflict than anything. The questioning of peoples expertise is more pronounced in areas where :boo: feels they have more expertise, but they have already committed to stopping that, and I think they should be given the opportunity to prove good on their word as to that. That leaves a block or a full CBAN. A standard block would not be appropriate here as there is not presently ongoing behaviour needing stopping, and a CBAN is an absolute last stop for worst case scenarios.{{pb}} I appreciate that a lack of serious sanction can feel unsatisfying for complainants here, with as many converging statements as there have been. But a firm warning is not nothing. One of our estimable colleagues recently closed a controversial thread here at ANI noting that despite no action, the party most complained about should consider that community eyes will be on them moving forward. I recall thinking at the time that their observation is actually valid for many threads here. There's a conventional (though not universally accepted) wisdom in the world of criminal law that a mistrial leaves the defendant in a slightly improved position for a subsequent trial. I think the opposite is typically true in this world: the community does not like seeing the same names pop up in connection with the same issues over and over. {{pb}} Given the weight of the concerns raised here on the first bite of the apple, :boo: would be well advised to perceive themselves on thin ice and should contemplate that if they come back here as a consequences of their own intractability, it probably will be broad TBAN or CBAN time. Or they could still very well talk themselves into it in this thread, though I think that is unlikely. Regardless, for the moment, I am in favor of WP:ROPE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It doesn't strictly apply here, but I'll note that WP:ROPE includes, under "when not to use", {{green|If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong}}. Clearly, BOO hasn't been blocked, but equally I think the main part of the sentence is very close to the current situation. Equally, while this may be a first rodeo at ANI (though I haven't checked that), this is clearly a long-term pattern of behaviour where previous admonishments have had no effect. It may be different to have one that comes with a more official stamp, of course, but all of this makes me sceptical that a stern warning alone will be successful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That's fair, but I'll note that if we put too much of weight on a failure to acknowledge being in the wrong, we'd have to start blocking a lot more than we already do. But hey, I'm honestly not looking to go to the mat on this: I already had some blunt words for :boo: myself above, and I certainly don't feel justified in dismissing the concerns of those who have been in the trenches with them during the cited disputes. I can only say what my own instinct is with regard to which ameliorative approach feels like it has the best cost-benefit promise, given where we are now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've read through the Talk page of Bæddel and bædling, the FACR, and the AfD discussion of Sumarr and Vetr. Bloodofox needs to stop commentting on other editors in discussions about content. Countless comments of theirs on those three pages are completely inappropriate. The AfD is a clear example of why being right isn't enough. The article was kept, but that does not justify the long string of personal attacks they made, at times even going out of their way to add them retroactively [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1260882954].

{{hat|1=List of Bloodofox's personal attacks at WP:Articles for deletion/Sumarr and Vetr}}

• "learn the basics before even nominating something like this"
• "There's a lot to do on Wikipedia and attempting to delete well-sourced and well-written articles on topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about isn't one of them. Yeesh."
• "Again, you'd be wise to become familiar with even the basic of fundamentals with a topic before injecting yourself into a discussion regarding it."
• "which you'd know if you read the article you're trying to delete"
• "This drive to delete well-sourced material useful for readers over actually working to improve Wikipedia is absurd."
• "Spend less time on pages like this and more time actually reading about these subjects before wasting your time and the time of others, or maybe even spend that time attempting to improve the project in some way. What you're up to here is essentially Wikipedia:Disruptive editing"

{{hab}}

: Their claim, made today in this discussion, that "In fact, the editor had not read the article and was not familiar with the material" is yet another personal attack. I do not understand why Bloodofox would go out of their way to repeat a personal attack here, while simultaneously implying that the many incidents raised here are too old to be relevant ("Spending all that time trawling through my many thousands of edits all the way back to 2016", "...the AfD 2024. I had completely forgotten about it, but I guess this is a fishing trip"). Clearly their behavior has not changed, despite them downplaying their previous incivility. I hope an uninvolved admin will consider applying escalating blocks for continued personal attacks per the NPA policy, starting with the one made today.

: The behavior at other venues, especially Talk:Bæddel and bædling and the FACR looks like BATTLEGROUND behavior. They seem to frequently comment on other editors (ad hominem) when discussing content issues and refuse to follow WP:BRD, instead accusing other editors of edit-warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250418114500-Removal_of_numerous_WP:RS,_reinstitution_of_correct_dates,_etc.][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250418121200-Tim_riley-20250418115900][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250419031100-Sawyer777-20250418161100][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bæddel_and_bædling#c-Bloodofox-20250419032500-Borsoka-20250419032400]. But this is frankly secondary to the repeated insults they continue to lob around, including in this very discussion, which must stop. Toadspike [Talk] 18:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• My only encounter with this user was at the move request for Braucherei which was frustrating to say the least. I actually considered bringing it to ANI at the time, but decided not to as the discussion seemed to be fizzling out and I'd hoped it was a one-off. I see now that this is a pattern. In my mind there are a few issues here. Being right isn't enough has already been mentioned. There's also been some mention of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten discussion with Paine] on Braucherei. which was a complete failure to WP:AGF. They never even asked why Paine chose Braucherei out of the four options listed, and assumed that Paine {{tq|decided the activist, WP:CANVAS votes overruled everyone all else}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1293709903].{{pb

}}Another issue is WP:ASPERSIONS. To quote, in part: {{tq|Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.}} Mentioning issues once in the relavent thread is fine, but instead of then addressing it at ANI, :boo cited RGW 22 times on the Braucherei talk page. Multiple editors, myself included, asked them to stop. They continued to bring this up a few days ago in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2025_June&diff=prev&oldid=1294908538 move review] which again, is not the appropriate venue. {{pb

}}While I support a logged warning, my own experience makes me a little concerned. They seemed receptive to my criticism and even apologized to me in March [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=prev&oldid=1281744262], only to immediately continue the same behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1281852941]. I called them out on this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=next&oldid=1281744262], but honestly I'm still not sure what they were talking about in their response [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=next&oldid=1282185717]. Hopefully this time will be different. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• After reading through this whole thread, this is unreasonable incivility and arrogance from an expert. This is a net negative... Rhinocrat (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• I have not been pinged to this discussion, but learned about it on the Move review. Bloodofox's behavior has displayed ownership and civility issues on the talk page of Braucherei. I had posted a request for feedback on WP:IPNA on March 8 regarding my thoughts about moving the Pow-wow (folk magic) article to another title that was more accurate, and suggested Braucherei – the intention was to start a conversation with some of WP’s Indigenous editors and those interested in Indigenous topics, not to deliberately engage in canvassing. I also (foolishly in retrospect) wrote that I thought the term was “possibly culturally insensitive” and that the title may be “cultural appropriation”. I had no idea that those two terms are forbidden on Wikipedia! I did not think at the time that this would be inappropriate or canvassing. It was not a formal proposal to iVote on a move; it was another editor later turned my original question into a formal move proposal on March 17, over a week later. On March 20, Bloodofox then posted a canvassing message on the Fringe Notice Board (that was called out by two editors one of whom refactored his message due to its non-neutral wording.) I apologize for using the words “cultural appropriation” and “possibly culturally insensitive” in my original query to IPNA, it did not occur to me that they were impermissible. I really had no idea things would blow up the way they have, and I am sorry for any drama I inadvertently stirred up. However, I find the reactions by this editor to be highly inappropriate and uncivil, and am feeling rather bullied by their ongoing assumptions of bad faith on the part of anyone who disagrees with them.{{pb

}}On the article talk page Bloodofox has accused those disagreeing with him of being “activist” eleven (11) times; ‘canvasser” or canvas(ing) sixteen (16) times; invoked WP:RGW twenty-two (22) times; and “censorship” ten (10) times. He has also stated that editors who disagree are “demanding”, “dishonest”, “desperate”, “inflammatory”, “sarcastic goal-post movers”, and accused others of making statements that were “outright false to the point of insulting” in other words, liars; who are “lobbying to RGW while contributing nothing to article spaces”. He also personally accused me of coordinating “a call to arms” project, to “bring a crew of censors.”{{Pb

}}This seems gravely out of proportion to me, especially when I and other editors brought sources to the table and offered several alternative names for the article such as Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic. Just because Bloodofox has been here a long time does not give him permission to violate civility guidelines. There needs to be a stop to this behavior so that editors can have productive conversations and debates that do not blow up like this. I had no idea before reading this report that similar behavior was occurring elsewhere on the project. Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• :{{tq2|I apologize for using the words “cultural appropriation” and “possibly culturally insensitive” in my original query to IPNA, it did not occur to me that they were impermissible.}}
• :They're not? They're not always good arguments but they're definitely not banned. I would at least consider this argument if presented. Loki (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• I certainly believe that Bloodofox is a very knowledgeable contributor, but I can't say my experience working with him here has been entirely positive. While we initially got along quite well, in 2022 I got on Bloodofox's bad side during a rewrite of Germanic peoples. The dispute centered around the wording of the lead, leading to a brief edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=next&oldid=1065506664], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germanic_peoples&diff=next&oldid=1065552833]. Anyway, things came to a head in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germanic_peoples/Archive_21#That's_SOME_edit_war this discussion], wherein Bloodofox argued against multiple editors while refusing to provide any source for his preferred wording, all while repeatedly questioned my motives and "qualifications". Just a few examples: {{tq|ridiculous talk page blather from ideology-motivated editors}}, {{tq|you're on a mission here, and that you appear to be far less interested in improving the article than you are in making a point}}. A second discussion, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germanic_peoples/Archive_21#Religious_continuity here], caused even more ad hominems attacking me as an ignorant contributor: {{tq|I see that you're new to this topic}}, {{tq|I get that you're new and excited about all this (and clearly have a pretty strong POV about rejecting the phrase "Germanic peoples" and all)}}. In this second discussion, Bloodofox also pinged in several editors who were likely to agree with him, leading to me scolding him for WP:CANVASSING. Things got fairly heated, and I may have said some things I now regret as well, but I think the point that Bloodofox basically couldn't (or at least didn't) produce any sources that supported his preferred wording and resorted to ad hominem attacks on my supposed lack of knowledge is fairly telling. It's the exact same behavior noted by others on this thread in other contexts. (Perhaps in his defense, once it was clear that consensus was against him, Bloodofox did let go and stop edit-warring).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :My experiences mirror to a large degree, those of Ermenrich. On both the Germanic peoples page and the Germanic religion page, he was rather condescending in his tone during group interactions/discussions. When he was asked to provide sources to substantiate his arguments, he more or less either disappeared or quietly allowed consensus to rule by absenteeism—which was a tad off-putting and/or disingenuous. To his credit, he is respected for his knowledge domain on particular subjects. It would be a shame to lose a person with his level of knowledge, but there is room for improvement with regard to civility and the implicit condescension he periodically displays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ermenrich, {{replyto|Obenritter}} I've been trying to avoid the details of my content dispute but responding because you both mention his relationship with sourcing. He won't provide sources for most of his claims, and I'm confident he's been outright been wrong in my recent discussion with him. When he does provide a source, it is not something that would ever get through dispute resolution (which may explain why he is so resistant to it). When I do provide source to contest what he has said, his basic pattern is to mention the names of scholars, loosely suggesting they agree with him, and quoting poetry. I want to give an example.

{{hat|1=Example}}

• He says Snorri didn't author an eddic fragment on Gna [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odin#c-Bloodofox-20250610224100-ImaginesTigers-20250610222400 in this comment]:
• {{purple|First, to be clear, Snorri also didn't write the eddic fragment about Gná. He didn't write any eddic poetry on record. The Gná fragment is an otherwise unattested poem in the Prose Edda (specifically Glyfaginning). And anyone who covers it — or even reads it and the prose surrounding it, it is very readable — such as Simek or Lindow or Orchard is perfectly aware that the poem fragment and its explanation outright says that Gná, a goddess, has a horse and that she rides it through the air. (As Faulkes renders it: "Fourteenth Gna: she is sent by Frigg into various worlds to carry out her business. She has a horse that gallops across sky and sea, called Hofvarpnir. It happened once as she was riding that some Vanir saw her travelling through the sky.")}}
• I provide a massive, collapsed box of scholarship contradicting him on Snorri/Gna, and on several other points (this comment).
• He replies: {{purple|And there's still a major error regarding this in your draft: The Gylfaginning text is prose with an eddic poetry fragment predating it. Is it your intention to imply Snorri authored the stanza and/or to ignore the eddic fragment, the sole eddic fragment containing a narrative focused on Gná?}}

:::He doesn't respond to any of the scholarship contradicting him. This isn't actionable for 2 reasons: 1) there's no source, and 2) I don't know what he's referring to specifically in the 6000-word article.

{{hab}}

:::In my view, this conduct simply doesn't work when you're facing a group of knowledgeable editors, but does if you're dealing primary with 1 editor (and some bystanders); i.e., it's the most advanced SQ stonewalling I've ever seen. Ermenrich: Regarding the part about pinging people likely to agree with him: yes. I received [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295476690 this "feedback"] from one of his regular collaborators earlier. I've disengaged from the page but I can they're [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295584883 being abrasive] with another user right now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You know, {{U|ImaginesTigers}}, you really should ping me if you're going to link to diffs here of edits I've made. I'd like to make clear, as anyone who clicks on that first link can see, that "feedback" of which you speak was not addressed to you, so you didn't "recieve" it. If you think my reply to the other editor was "abrasive", I would say that seems hypersensitive, especially in light of the fact that said editor kindly apologized for their comment. Apparently you were offended, but they weren't. Carlstak (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::How on earth could directly saying that someone "doesn't have the editorial chops" to do something not be addressed to that person? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Here is the full quote of your comment, for clarity:

:::::{{tq2|Agreed. The article could use some rewriting, but ImagineTigers, who I'm sure means well, doesn't have Bloodofox's expertise, and in my opinion, doesn't have the editorial chops to pull it off.}}

:::::And it doesn't make any difference that it was a reply to another editor's comment, it's obvious the recipient of your barb was ImagineTigers. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. It's unfortunate that this has gone all the way to the CBAN level, but it's also unfortunate that bloodofox's defenders - including myself here at times - have let it get this far via enabling him on the theory that he knows a lot. It's absolutely true that a lot of bloodofox's contributions have been good. This is what makes it so frustrating that he so consistently misinterprets what other editors are up to in objectively incorrect ways. See the "List of Cryptids" debate linked to by Rhododendrites, where he accuses Rhododendrites of tag-teaming as a duo with an editor who Rhododendrites proposed be topic-banned. Bananas. Or see the bizarre accusations that ImaginesTigers was "stalking" him - when ImaginesTigers began his Odin draft rewrite, he didn't interact with bloodofox at all and doesn't seem to have interacted with him before. No, it's just an editor being interested in the topic. Even after this ANI thread was opened - and when bloodofox should have known to be on somewhat more polite behavior - he still was bizarrely hostile to ImaginesTigers. In the Bæddel FAR and talk page, bloodofox grossly overreacted to the whole citation to the OED matter. Now, he found a problem, and if he'd just raised it, it'd have been great. But instead he acted like a tweak where a statement was somewhat overstating how much the citation backed it - that it merely mentioned another scholar's view while the text implied it endorsed it - was evidence that Generalissima was faking sources or an activist or incompetent or the like. It took what could have been an easy win for collaboration that, to repeat, other editors agreed on, and made it a terrible feel bad.
• I want to qualify something here. We shouldn't necessarily treat all saltiness on talk pages as a bad sign. In some domains, good editors have to deal with genuine threats to the encyclopedia - POV-pushers, promotional editors, and people who are just straight liars. Some amount of "calling a spade a spade" can be legitimate then, and some editors are themselves inflammatory in comments, so getting some of their own medicine back can be understandable. So the mere fact that bloodofox has denounced editors should not be held up as a cause for sanction. But - the problem is that bloodofox's denunciations are aimed at completely the wrong targets, obvious good faith editors who really have read the sources, and who are engaging in the boring, common process of scholarship that happens everywhere else. Most editors would count themselves lucky to have such "opponents" who were so patient as to bother responding to his extremely over-the-top denunciations of them. Even giving BOO the absolute most credit for being "right" here (and to be clear he's not in fact always 100% right), he can treat these other editors like regular humans who might be a touch misinformed but willing to respond to sources and arguments. Why he is unable is baffling and frustrating, but this is where all the earlier attempts to send warning bells clearly failed, like the terrible close of the List of cryptids debate that basically said "you go king".
• I hope that bloodofox is not too annoyed at Wikipedia and is still willing to contribute, but if he is and wants to stay here, please, please, don't be a "brilliant jerk". We don't need brilliant jerks. Commit to acting civilly in all situations and easing up the heat on good-faith editors, and a CBAN may yet be avoided. SnowFire (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• I've been on Wikipedia since 2007. I have had a number of encounters with Bloodofox over the years, albeit none recently. None of them have been positive. I think their engagement in this discussion was typical - at every juncture the attitude was that anyone discussing with them must be someone as invested as they were in the discussion, but from the other side, and thus ipso facto a bad-faith actor. I'm not !voting in this discussion (yet) but I'm disappointed to see that not much appears to have changed in the past five+ years. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I hate to jump to this. I really do. I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of a lesser sanction that would prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and I've got nothing. I warned Bloodofox at AE 18 months ago for {{tqq|speculat[ing] about other editors' religious views [and] attempt[ing] to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views}}, and the conduct described above, and the very lacking response thereto, only serve to convince me that Bloodofox' tendency to personalize disputes, including by focusing on editors' identities, has only gotten worse, not better—something I already suspected when he randomly showed up on my talkpage seven months after that AE warning to demand I take it back because it was {{tqq|outrageous and detrimental to the Wikipedia project}}.

Let's be blunt about this: Generalissima is queer. She is open about this on her userpage. She wrote an article about a topic often discussed through a queer lens, and cited an academic, Erik Wade, who is [https://x.com/erik_kaars also openly queer]. At Talk:Bæddel and bædling and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1, Bloodofox has repeatedly made the conclusory assertion that Wade is an "activist source" and that the article attracts "activist editors" (implicitly, Generalissima). He has given no explanation at all of why Generalissima would be seen as an activist editor. He thinks Wade, a professional medievalist whose paper appears in the Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature, is an activist source because he cites Leslie Feinberg. This is, transparently, an objection that a queer editor has cited a queer scholar who cited a queer thinker to analyze queer medieval history. The implication is clear: There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda. This is obnoxious; it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia; it is consistent with the biased attitude I warned Bloodofox for in 2023; and, critically, it refutes his argument, repeated so many times, that as a subject-matter expert we must defer to him. A subject-matter expert ought to know the difference between LGBTQ activism and legitimate academic inquiry into queer topics throughout history.

In other words, if Bloodofox is an expert, he's not doing a very good job at it. What he is doing a good job of is creating a hostile editing environment. I would really encourage anyone, before !voting here, to read through not just the discussion above but also all the linked discussions. It's a lot to read but it packs a punch. Almost every uninvolved party, including some I do not think of as civility enforcement diehards, has faulted Bloodofox' chronic incivility, belittling of others, and naked appeals to his supposed expertise. What to do about an editor like this is a debate as old as Wikipedia. In recent years, though, the community has been increasingly clear: Whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away. I am open to supporting a sanction less than a siteban if someone can think of one that would work, but for now, that's where I stand.

(Note: I have no non-admin-capacity involvement with any of the discussions at issue here. However, Generalissima was my mentee—not that she needed much help to quickly surpass me as a far superior content creator—and the closer is welcome to give less weight to my !vote on that basis.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly found myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Bloodofox's opinion but finding the way they are going about expressing that opinion disagreeable. I don't feel that they are a net negative but they're certainly making it harder and not easier to reach consensus in a civil manner. Its important to keep in mind that being right isn't enough... I don't think we're at the point of no return where a community ban is the best outcome though. I hold out hope that Bloodofox can self correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:FWIW, I'd easily support a page ban, and I agree with Tamzin's analysis here that part of the issue in this case is bloodofox refusing to consider the idea of queer scholarship legitimate. But I think the maximum reasonable sanction if that's the full story is a WP:GENSEX topic ban.

:I think we should only consider a (cross-topic) CBAN if:

:a. The problem is not with bloodofox's behavior in any given topic area but a general lack of civility across all topic areas.

:b. Bloodofox has been given enough WP:ROPE that they could reasonably anticipate a CBAN for further misbehavior.

:I think a) is likely to be true: in addition to the GENSEX-adjacent debate that spawned this ANI thread, we've also seen reports of issues over at Braucherei and at Odin, though I haven't looked into either of those situations with enough detail to be confident saying that bloodofox's behavior was definitely bad. For b), though, I don't think a single warning at AE qualifies. If there's more evidence that bloodofox should have known they were cruising for a CBAN then I wouldn't be opposed, but right now it seems like we're jumping straight to the strongest possible sanction right from the start. Loki (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Eh, upon reading the thread Rhododendrites linked from 2018, and seeing how bloodofox's behavior hasn't changed as measured by multiple recent topic bans, I am now convinced that they have in fact been given sufficient WP:ROPE and would support a CBAN. Loki (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:that conversation at tamzin's talk page last july is frankly bizarre. in my view, it speaks to an inability to let things go. re: the "activist source" issue at Bæddel/bædling, i did not want to make that point because well, i know i'd be called an "activist editor" too. that is a frequent accusation which bloodofox makes against editors they disagree with (and sometimes it has merit to it!), such as with Falun Gong and Mami Wata. in fact they doubled down on the unfounded "activism" accusation against ForsythiaJo in this thread: "responding to ideological drive-by editing". now, i'm not familiar with the Mami Wata topic, but i do know what WP:ASPERSIONS are. i'm sure there really is ideologically-driven editing at Mami Wata, Falun Gong, Braucherei, and other articles they've mentioned. that is not on any planet an excuse to treat fellow editors the way they do. they've been formally warned for this at AE, and it didn't seem to even make a dent - there is scarce evidence of self-reflection or even admitting to poor treatment of others. this very discussion is chock-full of the exact same attitude and behavior that is driving people away from working on articles. i am currently not sure of my position on a CBAN vs. some other solution - i'd love if someone could think of something less than a CBAN but with more teeth than just a "strong warning" - but i think tamzin is absolutely right that {{tq|whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away.}} ... sawyer * any/all * talk 05:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Rhododendrites' comment seals the deal for me. i ran into bloodofox one time at cryptid topics (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not-deer) and it was more of the same condescension. a topic ban would not be effective here - the issues are across all topics they edit. i don't oppose a temporary block as a compromise, but after consideration i'm landing at tentative support for a CBAN - with the understanding that it doesn't have to be permanent. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 23:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this is too much for the moment, when a GENSEX topic ban hasn't even been proposed yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Tamzin puts it extremely well. While there is a particular problem here when this behaviour crosses into GENSEX, this is not specifically a problem with Bloodofox's editing of GENSEX articles. Blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, and given that major parts of this problem have surfaced (at least) at Braucherei and Odin, there is no reasonable case that a GENSEX ban would prevent further issues. It sways me to hear that Bloodofox has already received a strong, unambiguous warning from an admin: I therefore have no faith that a further stern warning would have any effect, especially given the attitude shown here. I would therefore support a CBAN, though that isn't to say I'd be unwilling to consider a lesser sanction, as Sawyer says. At the minimum, I think I'd be looking for a topic ban from anything related to early medieval Europe, broadly construed -- I think Tamzin's point is really important, that being unwilling to engage with queer scholarship is incompatible with being an expert, particularly in a field like this where queer scholarship is hugely important -- and, incidentally, which has a well-known problem with people trying to use it for virulent racist, sexist, queer-phobic, fascist and similar ideologies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support – I've read this entire thread, plus the other various discussions mentioned here, and in my view, there has been, and still is, a pattern of chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This comment from theleekycauldron pretty much sums it up: {{tq|Just in this thread, I'm seeing lots of other people come forward with their stories of how you derided them as incompetent, negligent, or bad-faith, and how it discouraged them from working with you. It wouldn't matter if you were 100% right on every single content dispute cited here – that's still not an acceptable way to treat people}}. If you can't be civil in your collaborations with fellow editors, and they just don't want to be around you, because they have felt maligned by your discourse, then you have become a net negative to the project. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#%22Insufferable_Little_Prick%22 Is there a lack of clarity nowadays with civility in policy?] I know in the past it was a bit gray and it appears to me that WP:CIVIL seems to have all but gone out the window as something that is enforced.. ? :bloodofox (1 November 2013)
• ::A little ironic, don't you think? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support I would support based on the thread as a whole and my comments/reading of some of the interactions that have been brought up. Additionally, {{tq|Let's be blunt about this: Generalissima is queer. She is open about this on her userpage.}} So is Paine Ellsworth. I'd not seen the interactions between Paine and BOO through Tamzin's filter (in the proposal above) and AGF prevents me from doing so. But the question nags... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Tamzin's analysis up to a point, but I think this is far too much of a leap when we haven't even proposed a GENSEX ban yet. This is a long-term editor with a pretty much clean block log (2 blocks, both overturned) and going straight to a CBAN seems to me a step too far. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I missed that. But it still seems a cban is too extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been clear in the section above about my opinion on the matter however I think {{U|Horse Eye's Back}} has most effectively summarized my view above. Simonm223 (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Far too severe. (At this point in time.) Basically, "per Simon223", as HEB puts it well. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as a leap of logic without adequate foundation. Whatever happened to a series of escalating blocks? Start with a three month (?) block and go from there. Hopefully by the end they'll learn that you can be an expert without being an arse. Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten is some of the most juvenile bullshit I've ever seen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• For clarification, I support a six month block of the sort {{noping|SchroCat}} suggests below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I think Bloodofox is the only long-timer that I actively try to avoid, but seeing "maybe three months" or "try a topic ban" made it clear there's been insufficient documentation of a long-term problem. So I guess I will tell you about the saga where Bloodofox decided that I was part of some insidious creationist-cryptozoology conspiracy to thwart wikipolicy and promote stupid cryptid stuff (almost as ironic as the time I got some off-wiki harassment for supporting gamergate after someone misread a revert).
  Basically the same kind of story as the examples above. I stumbled upon list of cryptids maybe a decade ago and made a bunch of edits to remove a lot of the, well, stupid cryptid cruft that had accumulated. Some years later, as part of a broader wikiwar against cryptozoology, Bloodofox decided that page had to go. It was still on my watchlist, and found myself trying to find a middleground between Bloodofox's everything-must-go-and-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-the-enemy approach and a couple other users' efforts to include cruft based on silly blogs and sighting reports. So I wound up on the enemies list. It was a whole thing that I won't bore you with, and it mostly came to a head in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=875332364#Bloodofox this thread], in which I suggested both Bloodofox and the most active person adding cryptozoology content with insufficient sourcing be topic banned. There was more support for it than not before it was closed (by someone who, when challenged, ignored the thread and suggested we all just thank Bloodofox for sharing his valuable expertise). I threw up my hands with Wikipedia in general for a short while, unwatched the list, and figured I'd just steer clear of Bloodofox because life's too short or something.
  So we have... let's call that a near-miss sanction on the list of cryptids, and add that to a topic ban from the Clintons, a formal warning on speculating about personalizing disputes at Falun Gong, and now -- how many different subjects in the evidence above? All demonstrating the same pattern of pervasive battleground approach to disputes. I do tend to err on the side of more leeway for long-term productive contributors, and I don't know to what extent my own awful experiences with Bloodofox are coloring my reading of the evidence above, but this feels like an old, established pattern that has reached "enough is enough". FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough. I agree wholeheartedly with {{tq|whatever we gain by retaining an editor like this, we silently lose much more through the editors they drive away}}. I encourage editors who are arguing that this is jumping the gun to have a read of Rhododendrites' comment. And as someone professionally familiar with the topic that brought Generalissima to this noticeboard in the first place, I can say that, well, "activist scholar" isn't something Erik Wade hasn't heard before, but it's a strongly pov comment. It's the sort of thing you say when you go on a right-wing podcast to complain about woke professors brainwashing your kids. It's not the kind of thing you say in polite academic company. -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support{{Small| (involved)}}. With an AE warning and two (reverted) blocks, evidence by this many editors warrants a sanction IMO. Page ban is insufficient because the problematic areas span gender controversy (bæddel and bædling); wider cultural controversy (i.e., braucherei move and post-move discussions); and Old Norse content (the Sumarr and Vetr AfD). A GENSEX topic ban seems insufficient; there's plenty of queer Old Norse scholarship but that doesn't warrant a GENSEX flag on the articles and so may not catch further issues. It's natural to wonder if bloodofox's 20+ years has played a role in the vanishingly small Old Norse editor base. Plenty of complex topic areas have thriving and highly collaborative editor bases (e.g., Classical Greek and Rome's recent rescue of Carus' Sasanian campaign). Bloodofox [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295183727 pinged in] one "regular collaborator" to Talk:Odin who had never edited the article before, and their response is horrifyingly reminiscent of his own critiques, with not a single bit of actionable feedback on the content ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odin&diff=prev&oldid=1295476690 diff]). We know the result of inappropriately focusing on contributors over content and it's not editor retention. It's possible the damage to the topic area is worse than our current understanding. While a TBAN from medieval Europe might force reflection on how to gather consensus without leveraging their presumed expertise, bloodofox's long-term failures to make a strong arguments on Talk without bludgeoning and incivility really calls this expertise into question. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• After starting the thread, I was very unsure what sort of sanctions would be appropriate or effective here. Tamzin and Rhododendrites make really good points here — the behavior is not restricted to any one topic or even related cluster of topics, it has been evidenced for years now, and there have been existing sanctions which indicate that this behavior is not tolerated. I think the biggest negative here is the fact that bloodofox's behavior seems to actively drive people away from topics that need more help. What sticks with me most is the editor that told ImaginesTigers "welcome to the Norse mythology Wikipedia editing experience". Out of context, that might seem like a petty jab, but with all this context it's the sign of a problem gone way, way too far. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Disproportionate. The accuracy and balance of our encyclopaedic coverage are paramount; while civility is important, we do not promote neutrality by attempting to balance the competing preferences/needs of editors, but rather by attempting to report the positions of reliable sources. Academics disagree, and academics in different fields can take quite different approaches to an intersectional topic (opening up different avenues of approach is an important aspect of modern scholarship). It's our job as encyclopaedia writers to deal with this in a way that informs the reader, not to have either a symposium or a cage match over which approach is the one true one, and not even to assume that the latest scholarship is always right and throw out older scholarship. Bloodofox has been right in pointing to the body of existing scholarship and in establishing that scholars that other Wikipedians may not have heard of are not therefore necessarily unworthy (Liberman and Wade are both RS). He's been right in pointing out that something went wrong in the asessment of Bæddel and bædling for FA (and probably GA too; I'm not sure what the GA standard is on completeness and balance). Yes, he writes robustly, even rudely at times. But banning him for upholding standards on content would be shooting the messenger. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I find {{tq|not to have either a symposium or a cage match over which approach is the one true one}} an odd sentence in a defence of bloodofox. In the FAR he is adamant that the article should center his field of linguistics, and his evaluation of Wade has all the nuance of a steel chair. If he is representing an academic consensus, he has done a very poor job of demonstrating it. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::But of course the article should "center" linguistics. It's about 2 glosses, and the argument is over how to balance competing arguments about the etymology. Bloodofox has been trying to get an actual etymology section with coverage of the mainstream etymological arguments into the article. In short: the article should cover both the content sourced to Germanic linguists and the content sourced to the queer theorist making a language-based argument, it's not either/or. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for arguing preferred analyses. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I am the editor who took Ýdalir to GAR last year and was met with aspersions about my editing ability and knowledge. Since GAR can be touchy, I assumed they were acting out of frustration at the process and didn't concern myself further. I commented at the baedling FAR briefly, to point out that bloodofox was leaving walls of bludgeoning text accusing others of leaving bludgeoning walls of text. Unsurprisingly, given their attitude elsewhere at that page, they did not acknowledge the point or alter their approach. Around this point, I realized that they were the same editor from the GAR and realized that the behavior was clearly not limited to GAR. Otherwise, I don't edit Norse mythology or history, or pretty much anywhere else that bloodofox hangs out. So I would call myself mildly involved. {{parabr}}Until this thread, I was not aware of the scope and breadth of their behavior, and I am convinced that it does merit a CBAN. The evidence linked and quoted in this thread makes it clear that bloodofox's uncivil and downright nasty behavior is long-term, in that it extends over years, and wide-spread, in that it touches multiple topic areas and targets multiple people. A page-ban, IBAN, or TBAN would be insufficient to prevent further nastiness, and would only push it to another area. Several people above are concerned about escalating sanctions: what does one call stern warnings at AE, a previous TBAN, and two blocks? And yet the behavior continues. Yes, both blocks were overturned, once by a frankly out-of-process unblock that leaves me scratching my head - but nonetheless, you would think being blocked even once would be a wake-up call. Given their messages to Tamzin half a year after the AE warning, it is clear that warnings and finger-wagging do nothing but make them more aggrieved rather than more cautious. What can we do with an editor who refuses to acknowledge wrong-doing, who stews on grievances, who makes no change to their behavior and attitude? The only option is to show them the door. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, having had relatively little interaction with Bloodofox, although remembering that they were tendentious. I have for a long time thought that users with Long block logs should be considered as likely net negatives and should often be indeffed. Bloodofox doesn't have a long block log. Can one of the editors who is proposing to ban Bloodofox show me evidence that is shorter than the long list of diffs collapsed above that indicates that this editor is a net negative? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Respectfully, opposing because you can't be bothered to read the extensive evidence is just wrong. If you don't have sufficient information to make a decision and don't wish to spend the time to obtain it, why comment at all? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Not to mention that the block log, in this case, speaks eloquently as to why this has been allowed to go on for so long. -- asilvering (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Striking the Weak Oppose, planning to read the evidence within a few days. On a content dispute, such as an AFD, MFD, or DRV, I know that I usually have six days in which to read the evidence, and the evidence isn't usually as long as in a conduct case. If this thread is closed before I finish reading the evidence, then the community may have reached rough consensus before I reached a conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk)
• Temporary oppose. If a (trans)gender related case is opened by ArbCom soon, this should be considered in that case. I am not going to try and add this to that case, because I'm trying to be an outsider there, but I think that the topic area as a whole needs looked at, which is best done by ArbCom in the arbitration setting with evidence and discussion/proposals by all. For clarity, I'm making this comment in both sections here, and my view here shouldn't be considered if the ArbCom case does not get accepted. I just feel strongly that the problems in this topic area are significantly larger than any one user, and I trust ArbCom, if they accept the case which I think is likely and necessary, will come up with good solutions to problems - whether they be topic/full bans, or otherwise. Until that happens, I don't think it's helpful for individuals to be sanctioned outside of that process, assuming it happens at all (which again, I think is likely). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I've spent some time looking into the particular entry which gave rise to this conflict. When Bloodofox first tagged the entry, it contained a false claim at the end of the opening paragraph. Whether that arose from a simple mistake or confirmation bias is not particularly important. The fact that the article was turned into a battleground to resist any changes {{small|(it took 48 hours and multiple reverts for the straightforward correction of "the OED supports Zupitza's theory")}} and that [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/B%C3%A6ddel%20and%20b%C3%A6dling 0 characters] of Bloodofox's contributions have been allowed to stand shows WP:OWN concerns and a resistance to expert intervention. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{ec}} This seems to be a vote about relitigating one specific point on one page, and completely ignores Bloodofox's attitude and approach over multiple pages, multiple topics and several years. I'll repeat what others have posted several times: being "right" about something does not give one the right to ignore civility policies and be utterly obnoxious al everyone who doesn't agree with them. This is an ongoing and long-term problem, not a one-off about whether someone was "right" on one page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Insofar as this ANI starts by claiming that Bloodofox is guilty of WP:OWN, it is well to point out that this is very much the opposite of what happened on the page that gave rise to this filing. The ownership behaviour is demonstrably coming from the other side. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If you want to take a blinkered view about "sides", then that's up to you, but there's a definite problem that is not being addressed, and that's an open sore that needs to be dealt with, not just ignored. The rest of the evidence, such as the Braucherei thread has been highly persuasive in my line of thinking. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support if for a fixed period An outright ban crosses close to overkill for me, but this is an ongoing, long-term problem that has resulted in a couple of blocks, a visit to AE and a TBAN. A topic ban, like the one proposed below, doesn't cover all the areas of disruption, so the alternatives are either a TBAN plus multiple bans across several pages, or a time-limited community ban or block for a period of six months or so, so I'm landing here for now, although I could be persuaded by alternatives if something more crafted to the circumstances could be worked up, but buying our heads in the sand and vaguely (and dubiously) claiming 'but he was right' is kicking the can down the road for problems yet to come. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Weakest possible oppose. Some of the newest evidence almost pushed be into support, but at the end of the day, I still have this concern: the community has broadly failed to apply the escalating sanctions model here, and :bloodofox:'s failings are therefor our failings. I'm not even saying I am confident :boo: is a net positive: it looks to me from the evidence presented here that on the whole, they may not have been for a while, so poisonous have their interactions apparently been for so many veteran editors (and who can guess how many more lower edit count editors were discouraged by similar comments who never knew bringing the matter here was an option). But again, that's on all of us, and going from near complete enabling to full community ban just feels problematic to me. But at this point, my oppose is based solely on not wanting to set a bad precedent for how we approach CBANs. That said, I am all for a block of non-trivial length. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I disagree that {{tq|bloodofox:'s failings are therefor our failings}}, when numerous editors have alerted them, throughout various talk page discussions, that their approach to editing the encyclopedia is not compatible with our established editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. Their failure to heed the advice given them on numerous occasions, is their failure alone. In just one example, out of numerous, six years ago they were warned - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&oldid=875378174#Rope you risk getting overheated in your defense of Wikipedia and could get sanctioned for how you react to people], but yet they continued, so I reject the idea that we somehow have failed our obligation to warn them of what could happen, and that because {{tq|the community has broadly failed to apply the escalating sanctions model here}}, we should take the blame for their actions. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per multiple comments above, this seems excessive, given that Bloodfox hasn't previously been sanctioned for such behaviour. It is clearly problematic, but immediate escalation to a CBAN seems unprecedented. A block for a couple of months at most would seem more in line with norms. And I'm inclined to agree with SnowRise above that if what appears to be a long-running issue hasn't been brought here before, it is indicative of a broader failings from the community and, in my opinion, quite possibly a consequence of the way WP:ANI discussions tend to spiral out of control far too often. As a way of encouraging 'civility', this place is far from optimum, and far too often, one gets the distinct impression that it is being used as an arena for continuing content disputes and/or settling old scores. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I arrived at this decision after following a link to this ANI because of the uncivil and demeaning behavior at Talk:Braucherei and the associated move reviews. However, I now realize that the belittling of other editors, casting of aspersions and unfounded accusations are patterns of ongoing behavior that has occurred across multiple areas of the encyclopedia for quite a few years. Bloodofox is an experienced, knowledgeable and active editor, and because of that should be aware of the parameters for decency and civility. Yet it seems that they have leaned on their longevity to repeatedly ignore the boundaries of civil discourse. As an active editor, there is no way these community expectations could have slipped by his notice. Pretty much everyone loses their cool from time to time when they get flustered or frustrated or believe they are right, so heated discussions are understandable. But the evidence that has been brought forward by multiple editors over a long expanse of time, proves that this is far beyond heated or passionate discussions and has entered the realm of downright hostile behaviors that have harmed the community. I have read this entire ANI thread and it’s clear that Bloodofox has not learned from the AE warning, TBAN and two blocks as well as multiple requests to stop the offensive behaviors and uncivil treatment of others, and the GENSEX issues. I agree with what Tamzin has brought to the table, and think that the comments by Rhododendrites, theleekycauldron, PMC, Isaidnoway, asilvering, and others have stated as strong rationales to support a CBAN, which can be appealed in 6-months. At this time I find the 3rd option of a 6 month block unacceptable because it may not include full community involvement. Netherzone (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Hesitant support. While I'm not completely opposed to starting with a shorter block, this thread shows that multiple editors have tried to tell :boo that their behavior is inappropriate in the past to no avail. As I said earlier[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295309280], I brought these issues up with :boo Talk:Braucherai in March. I thought they were receptive to it as they apologized to me on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CambrianCrab&diff=prev&oldid=1281744262]. Unfortunately they immediately went back to casting aspersions in an inappropriate forum [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Braucherei&diff=prev&oldid=1281852941]. When I called them out on this, they just brought up RGW for the 23rd time (the other 22 are throughout the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Requested_move_17_March_2025 move request]). Nothing is going to change if :boo doesn't think they did anything wrong. So far, I haven't seen any indication that they realize their behavior is inappropriate. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 22:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per the cogent arguments made by the other opposers. It is clear to me that Bloodofox is here to build an encyclopedia and their loss would be a net negative. Too many of the supporters appear to see him as an obstacle to writing areas of the encyclopedia the way they want (i.e. content disputes) and this should raise red flags. It is possible to work with people with an abrasive style, and I think Bloodofox will take this discussion to heart and improve their behaviour. Jumping straight to a community ban is not right here. The other options below feel like forum shopping to get some sort of result. This discussion itself, and the warning it gives, should be sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yngvadottir's comments. The bit above about being "horrifyingly reminiscent" is pretty funny.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Based solely on his conduct at Talk:Braucherei and the related move review, Bloodofox did not heed the warning to avoid commenting on editors' perceived motivations. I'm supporting a ban at this time because I don't think any of the alternatives are workable/go far enough. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as disproportionate for the alleged offense, which appears to me to be supported by a leap of assumptions. Boo called a scholar an activist for citing Feinberg; that is not the same as declaring queer medieval history to not exist. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, because the Tban or block aren't happening and all the uninvolved admins are too scared to follow policy. This is not my first choice, but something must happen. Toadspike [Talk] 17:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Toadspike, that's an unnecessary slur about hundreds of admins. I encourage you to strike that comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Liz: If a user feels that admins are unwilling or unable to do our jobs, I don't think that the appropriate response, for an admin, is to request a retraction. I don't think Toadspike is entirely right here (social capital dynamics around blocking power users are about more than just fear), but it's important that non-admins feel able to freely criticize the admin team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::While I understand Liz's feelings that TS's assessment is an oversimplification, I think Tamzin's observation is the more critical one: we must preserve an environment in which rank and file community members are free to voice their concerns about the use administrative prerogative--including when it comes to misgivings about inaction. Coming down too hard on such comments, even when we feel they were made hastily or without sufficient nuance, runs the risk of creating a chilling effect. And not for nothing, but blowing off steam via exaggeration of the inaction of the authorities is a necessary social lubricant for any collaborative human endeavour! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not saying that admins should be immune to criticism, User:Tamzin. I get criticized all of the time! But this comment was just such a blanket slur, it seemed thoughtless rather than malicious. While, like I said, no one is immune from criticism, I also don't think that insulting generalizations should get said about our editors and admins and not get called out as inappropriate. Admins are not a protected class, I agree, but they also shouldn't be open targets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the devil is in the detail here, Liz. I agree there is nothing wrong with responding to a comment like ToadSpike's in this instance by pointing out that unflattering blanket generalizations aren't the most productive feedback. That's a reasonable perspective to have/opinion to express. On the other hand, an admin saying that someone should strike their observation can easily be mistaken for more than a "suggestion". Toadspike did not make an accusation of a policy violation by a particular user, or anything else along those lines that could pass for an WP:Aspersion. They merely opined about the lack of proactiveness on the part of the administrative corps to act in cases of power users (to borrow Tamzin's choice of terminology). {{pb}} Now, as Tamzin also said, that statement about admins is an oversimplification at best. But it's also not exactly an unheard-of opinion among the non-mopped, nor is it something that constitutes a brightline violation of any policy. So calling for a striking in those circumstances is probably not a great look when it comes from an admin, in relation to a criticism of broad patterns of administrator tendencies--whether the assessment is fair or not. Just two cents from yours truly to one of my personal favourite admins. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And just to avoid my statement about oversimplification itself being an oversimplification, I'll be clear on what I think about what Toadspike said: Admins are generally hesitant to block experienced users for reasons of social capital. "Social capital" sometimes gets used in a disparaging way, but it's not inherently bad. Social capital is a measure of how much we trust one another, and if I as an admin see that a bunch of my peers all trust a specific user, that should give me pause before blocking the user. However, that isn't absolute, and when a block is necessary to prevent disruption, an admin should be willing to make that block. When looking at individual cases as an outside observer, I think it's pretty easy to see the difference between the good kind of social-capital-induced block hesitation and the bad kind. But it's hard to disentangle the two fully. Snow Rise, if you don't mind me using you as an example in good fun: If someone says something rude to you and you respond with a serious personal attack, and I choose not to block you, am I holding back because you are a well-respected editor who probably made a lapse in judgment in the heat of the moment, or am I holding back because you are a well-respected editor whose admirers would almost certainly take issue with the block? Both, of course; the two concepts are inextricably linked. All that is to say, fear is part of why no one's blocked Bloodofox here, but it isn't the full story, and the full story is as much a feature as a bug. We don't want Judge Dredd–style admins crossing off whomever they want with impunity; we also don't want cliques to prevent admins from enforcing policy. It's a tough balance to strike. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Well, I don't know if I have enough admirers to give any admin pause in a block by virtue of my community standing, but your point is a cogent one in principle. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, Liz. I know you mean well, but I stand by what I wrote. Fear is, to me, the only reasonable explanation for the fact that a blatant aspersion and personal attack (About theleekycauldron [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Bloodofox-20250612032100-Comments_from_Bloodofox above]: {{!xt|In fact, the editor had not read the article}}. An accusation not only unsupported, but falsified by the discussion in question) hasn't received so much as a warning in return. Tamzin and SnowRise have expressed this with a little more nuance. I don't think it's inappropriate to point out that a policy all admins are responsible for enforcing has not been enforced. I admit that it is less appropriate to speculate on why it hasn't been enforced, but I picked the most charitable explanation I could find in an effort to assume good faith. The fact that my "slur" was questioned while bloodofox's comment containing aspersions, personal attacks ("the most ill-intentioned way possible", "this editor is apparently out for my (ox)blood"), and blatant falsehoods ("snowball keep") still hasn't been simply proves my point. (If I come across as frustrated or disappointed, it is because I am.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Editors are our most valuable resource, and we are all volunteers. I've been following this thread. It reminds me of a subject-matter expert in one of my areas of interest a few years ago, who was so abrasive that they were impossible to collaborate with, and who got CBANned. Before that happened, I learned to avoid conflict by refraining from editing any article where they were active. That may not have been best for the encyclopedia, but it was was definitely best for my peace of mind. (I dislike WP:GRAVEDANCING, but could verify the username by email to anyone with a good reason to ask for it.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support After reading of all the evidence, I'm inclined to support the CBAN, because of the sheer civility problems they have, and the refusal of collaborating with others that disagree with their view points. And the amount of aspersions they have cast on other editors. Also per Alexandermcnabb. Codename AD ^talk 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weakest possible oppose - Bloodofox has been rude and belittling for absolute years on here. My own experience of them (in the "Cryptid" discussions circa 2018-19) was that anyone who disagreed with them was clearly, in their eyes, someone who believed that Cryptids were real and thus anything they had to say was instantly irrelevant and to be ignored. Regardless of the sourcing, regardless of how clear they were that they did not believe in Cryptids - merely saw sufficient sourcing to support an article about the fictional animal concerned as a fictional animal - in their eyes these people were mouth-frothing true believers in pseudoscience and were to be treated to as such.

:I don't see that anything here has changed in that time, but it's also clear that this is the result of a failure to act on the Wikipedia community, indeed rewarding this behaviour as part of a crackdown on perceived pseudoscience. At least in the past this behaviour has even been rewarded and cheered on (I think "Yes we are biased" is the biggest example of this kind of swaggering, unnecessary, counter-productive triumphalism, not uncoincidentally...). However, the community has some hot-button topics where this kind of disrespectful behaviour will get you directly in to trouble, and GENSEX is clearly one of them. And that's what happened here.

:So why oppose? Mostly because I think that people who contribute in other areas - or even (let's be honest) purposefully avoid hot-button topics because of the regularity with which it has bad outcomes for people within those areas - also deserve to be treated with respect. It should not only be the case that people can behave badly for years just so long as they stay clear of Wikipedia's "third rail", and that only editors within that area are defended against being treated in this fashion. The message I'm getting here is that Bloodofox could have carried on with their behaviour for another 20 years without anyone saying against them, just so long as it wasn't in the GENSEX area.

:For me to support we'd have to clear that Bloodofox's behaviour was unacceptable regardless of who it was directed towards or what area it occurred in. FOARP (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::@FOARP, I can't say I understand what you mean by {{tq|For me to support we'd have to clear that Bloodofox's behaviour was unacceptable regardless of who it was directed towards or what area it occurred in.}} The GENSEX tban is already off the table precisely because the issues span many (all?) topic areas. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That’s not the case being made at the head of this section. The case being made there is that this is about behaviour in the GENSEX area: that Bloodofox blundered carelessly into that minefield, behaving there as they did in other areas, and that’s what blew him up. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen an editor who I personally found behaved in an unacceptable fashion (I think Narky Blert above may also be thinking of the same editor), but who was generally celebrated, only finally come apart that way.

:::If Bloodofox is being CBAN’d, it needs to be stated clearly that this is because of behaviour that would be found unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I've just re-read {{u|Tamzin}}'s first paragraph, and can't find any way of reading it that doesn't unequivocally say {{tq|this is because of behaviour that would be found unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia}}. See in particular {{tq|I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of a lesser sanction that would prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and I've got nothing. I warned Bloodofox at AE 18 months ago for speculat[ing] about other editors' religious views [and] attempt[ing] to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views, and the conduct described above, and the very lacking response thereto, only serve to convince me that Bloodofox' tendency to personalize disputes, including by focusing on editors' identities, has only gotten worse, not better}} (all emphasis mine). Do you think something needs to be added to that? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|FOARP}}, there's no way to say this in a way that can't be read as sarcastic, but it's in no way my intent: have you read the other support votes, and the discussion preceding this proposal? Many editors have pointed out problems that stretch far beyond the gensex topic area as their reasons for supporting a cban. In my own support !vote, I specifically cited Rhododendrites', for example. The talk page message Tamzin refers to in the first paragraph of the cban proposal is also not gensex-related, if you want another example. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The point is not what other editors have said, it's the motion we're supporting/opposing. I want it clearly stated, not just implied, that this is not just another example of an editor carelessly treading in to a CTOP minefield. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Putting all other immediate considerations to the side, the observations {{u|FOARP}} makes here about a certain personality type who, by virtue of thinking of themselves as aligned with rationalism, believes they are entitled to flout the normal rules of decorum and process (and often being enabled in this sense of exceptionalism by boosterism from a like-minded clique and inaction from the broader community) are right on the nose, and highlight issues the community is well overdue to address in a systematic manner: FTN, for example is presently known for two things, in roughly equal measure:

:::1) the concerted, meticulous and principled work of many of our most dedicated subject matter experts in confronting and minimizing all manner of dubious, niche, and woo-oriented content, resisting the efforts of those pushing heterodox POVs out of sheer credulousness or self-interested promotion. A deeply a critical function for this project.{{pb}}And, unfortunately, also 2) some of its more zealous participants frequently blowing their lid out of burn-out and/or an overdeveloped sense that they are the ultimate guardians of the rational in the culture wars, losing all sight of our civility guidelines, AGF, and best practices for discussion and dispute resolution.

::At an absolute minimum, FTN is bar-none the the forum with the single largest footprint for WP:BITE anywhere on the project, and there's not even really a close second. In fact, the space has become so well known as a magnet for high-conflict personalities on both sides of the fringe divide that I've seen a number of people in past ANI discussions seriously propose deprecating the entire forum.{{pb}}All of which is to say, this self-appointed sense of entitlement to show short shrift to normal community behavioural expectations is long overdue for an organized response from the community; be it a series of pointed ArbCom cases, heavier enforcement at AE and ANI, promulgation of new policy language or all of the above. Because the editors who have adopted this philosophy of exceptionalism to the rules in the name of "fighting the good fight" against religion, and woo, and so forth do coordinate informally in rather a big pack, consistently arriving to reinforce one-another in editorial discussions at noticeboards and talk spaces.{{pb}}I've never had a direct interaction with :bloodofox: before this discussion, but I did recognize their name when they showed up here from several previous disputes that ended up at ANI which concerned religious movements and "cults" as a controversial label--an area where it is common to see the same type of efforts to gatekeep and deligitimize other users as has been a central complaint in this thread. {{pb}} And believe me, I am deeply convinced those attitudes need to be systematically disconstructed and removed from our work spaces (starting most asusredly with FTN). But FOARP is right: we have enabled these bullying tactics from self-styled anti-fringe warriors for years through our inaction. And much as I want to see a seachange in that respect, it just feels like a bad place to start by going straight from zero (no action, as CIV and AGF are regularly treated like toilet paper in these areas) to a hundred (a CBAN without trying any intermediary solutions first). {{pb}} We should instead be using a much more gradual (but firm and widely applied) movement towards making sure our basic behavioural standards are applied equally to all editors: new and old, skeptic and non-skeptic. This "well, they have to deal with so many SPAs and POV pushers, it's understandable if they lose any sense of tact" rationalization has got to be discarded. In these areas we need editors with higher than normal patience and proclivity towards applying all editorial and behavioural rules equanimously, even in the face of WP:NOTHERE. The idea that maintaining the bulwark against WP:FRINGE requires a losening of the normal rules or else we stand no chance of containing the worst of the credulous editors, self-promoters, and true believers is a complete canard. Indeed, it's an attitude that has clearly for years enabled huge time sinks for the community, and then we act surprised when the indulgence of these "fight fire with fire" attitudes predictably set entire content areas ablaze. {{pb}}But until we make the appropriate changes in a coordinated way as a community, we shouldn't be dumping all of our ire on an editor all at once because the dam finally broke. We turned a blind eye to those attitudes as a community. We can't absolve ourselves of complicency by putting it all on individual editors and shoving them out the door. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::(involved) Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re saying a small slice of the community has neglected its responsibility to editors previously, and now must abdicate responsibility to the wider editor base as a result. I certainly didn’t sign up for anyone to be a bully on anti-fringe crusades (and don’t know bloodofox’s history there).

:::You use a dam as a metaphor—an unstoppable current we must simply survive. That’s an unreasonable expectation of the community. Very few editors are a dam (especially if they largely produce fights instead of content). They are a broken pipe. We fix pipes that leak and hopefully, long term, design pipes that don’t. Far more people will quietly show themselves the door if we wrongly aim empathy at those causing disruption over the disrupted. (And after a TBAN and an AE warning!) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Tigers, could I trouble you to link me to the TBAN in question? I keep seeing it referenced here, but if it is still in effect, it isn't logged at WP:EDR, nor has anyone (that I have seen) mentioned what the proscribed area was, who applied it (community, ArbCom or admin working at AE), or what the context was. I have a response of mixed agreement and disagreement for your last post in mind (actually, I typed it out yesterday), but one element of my perspective is open to adjustment based on the specific of the TBAN situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::it was mentioned in the very first post - it was a year-long topic ban from the clintons back in 2016. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah yes, thanks, I do recall that now. I don't suppose you'd happen to have a link or even just the basic deets on the discussion by which it was applied? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive203#bloodofox ... sawyer * any/all * talk 06:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::SnowRise, I fully agree. I really wish this had ended with a 24hr block and a warning that the next one will be longer. Toadspike [Talk] 05:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree- SnowRise has their finger on the pulse here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Carcharoth. Haukur (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Carcharoth and AndyTheGrump. Jumping straight to a cban seems excessive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per {{u|FOARP}}'s "third rail" and i suggest editors should critically read the proposer's second paragraph. What {{u|Tamzin}} is clearly and transparently saying by implication is certain editors, content, and sources in this topic area are beyond criticism, those who dare should be banned, and that identity is more important than building an encyclopedia. See how easy that is? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and that "anyone" certainly inlcudes a large number of outright trolls, the incompetent, POV-pushers, and yes activists. There is an unsupported assumption, i would say myth, that droves of potentially productive editors are being driven off the project due to civility issues (mostly from FTN or as is stated above those of a "certain personality type"). My observation is that any criticism, far from driving editors away, is often elevated to "civility" concerns and weaponized either here or at AE. What is not an assumption and is supported is that editors leave because they become demotivated when they are unable to continue pushing bad content into articles {{cite journal|last=Steinsson|first=Sverrir|year=2024|title=Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=118|issue=1|pages=235–251 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/S0003055423000138 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/FC3F7B9CBF951DD30C2648E7DEFB65EE/S0003055423000138a.pdf/div-class-title-rule-ambiguity-institutional-clashes-and-population-loss-how-wikipedia-became-the-last-good-place-on-the-internet-div.pdf]]}} fiveby(zero) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Set aside the "broader" case for a moment and focus on this specific editor. There are people in this thread saying they've been driven off from contributing in areas boo frequents, editors who aren't "incompetent", "trolls", or "POV-pushers". Even if for the sake of argument you're right about other areas, it seems clear that it's not the case here. It's been openly known to be something of a missing stair problem in the area, and I say this as someone who agrees with him on parts and thinks it would be a shame to lose his expertise. Just because bloodofox has valuable feedback doesn't change the fact he objectively has driven off good editors trying to improve articles in ways he doesn't approve of (e.g. the Odin case or cryptids case above). There really isn't any question this has happened; just read the links. So I don't think hypothesizing the problem is overstated in general is relevant here. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - the OP certainly has merit. If I understand correctly, previous similar instances happened in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2023. Some see this as evidence of a pattern of conduct that isn't improving. I don't see it that way: I think if an editor crosses the line every 2 or 3 years, that's OK. That's an acceptable frequency of policy violations. Especially when it comes to civility (everyone loses their cool sometimes, every few years is not too often IMO, and incivility is very subjective), and especially for editors who edit in controversial topic areas (where it can be very, very hard not to lose one's cool, much harder than when editing alone or editing non-controversial topics). So, for me, I don't think this level of incivility every 2-3 years is worthy of a CBAN. That doesn't mean we should do nothing (and I will make a proposal below), but for me it just doesn't reach the level of the ultimate sanction. If this were happening every year instead of every few years, I'd probably have supported it. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Levivich I agree in theory that that wouldn't be an unacceptable rate of losing ones' cool, but I think you missed a bit of the timeline. The situation on Braucherei originally happened in March 2025 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Requested_move_17_March_2025 discussion in question] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295309280 summary]), and the interaction with Paine[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Braucherei#Article_now_entirely_rewritten] happened earlier this month. The discussion here opened with mention of some instances in 2024 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Generalissima-20250611221700-User:bloodofox] as well. By my count, the line crossing is happening multiple times a year, not every few years. CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 23:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to noticeboard reports not instances of incivility. If there were only one line crossing in the past year, I'd say that wouldn't even be worth an ANI thread. (Multiple recent line crossings, as here, are worth it.) Levivich (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Extremely belated comment. {{U|Tamzin}}'s reasoning in making this proposal (which I have already opposed) includes arguing that Bloodofox's edits show he believes {{tq|There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda.}} (Italics in the original.) Bloodofox stopped editing after posting above on 12 June. Looking at the history of his talk page before he blanked it, I found that back on 20 April, in response to {{U|Urve}} writing about :Bæddel and bædling, {{tq|I suspect you'd find that my some of my opinions on the article run counter to yours (there's almost certainly an activist history of the term which was written in the 70s and, as part of an influential cultural moment, that history should probably be presented}}, Bloodofox's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=prev&oldid=1286586520 response] ended with {{tq|It'd be great to have some WP:RS to add outlining any activist history related to the words, that sounds very interesting.}} These are not the words of someone negating queer history, and they specifically welcome source-supported content on activism related to the words. Which is what Urve had suggested Bloodofox was likely unaware of. In my opinion this seriously undercuts Tamzin's speculation as to Bloodofox's motivation, which has done Bloodofox an injustice. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I think the repeated use of "activist" in the comments above makes this defense less than useless. It very clearly just reconfirms Tamzin's statement above: bloodofox (and Urve, for that matter) really does genuinely appear to believe the only possible queer reading of history is an activist one, that the historic value of Wade's academic queer history perspective is about the 1970s when it was developed instead of, y'know, approximately 600-1066. Loki (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've been watching this discussion with some interest. But just clear something up, {{u|LokiTheLiar}}, I don't "believe the only possible queer reading of history is an activist one". When I say "activist history", I mean activist history. I think it's likely that gay activists published on the terms in gay magazines in the 70s. I don't think the terms appear in either Jack Nichols's GAY or the Advocate, but that's the sort of material culture and activist publication I'm referring to (I've been waiting to review others on microfilm and in my collection). Nichols and Lige Clarke published a lot of work that was purposefully activist on Whitman and other historical figures - I think "activist" is just a descriptor of their publishing intentions, not a naughty word that makes their work less important (or for that matter less reliable). To the extent it matters, I don't think Wade is an activist source. Urve (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::That is a useful clarification, however it still means that bloodofox only thinks the history of activists is a valid topic here, and that no evidence that he thinks the queer history of Old English is a valid topic of inquiry has been offered. Loki (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:*Oppose per Carcharoth.

:Riposte97 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Not enacted|1=This one, at least, has WP:SNOW in the forecast with the opposes lining up below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• Support as proposer This has come up multiple times above as a possible sanction less than a CBAN. Right now this is still the maximum sanction I feel is reasonable, and it definitely feels justified considered the central dispute in question revolves around bloodofox's blanket dismissal of queer scholarship. It wouldn't solve every issue that people have brought up but we shouldn't let searching for the perfect sanction stop us from imposing sanctions that are clearly justified. Loki (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support I've mentioned preferring a logged warning before but that was prior to seeing the evidence from Tamzin. While I still believe a cban is inappropriate, I do think a topic ban from GENSEX, unfortunately, seems appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm skeptical of this remedy. Bloodofox has been unpleasant on topics that have nothing at all to do with GENSEX (in this thread alone, Odin, Ydalir, cryptids, closing a move request in a way he disagreed with, etc.) so this isn't the core of the problem - civility and AGF and collaboration are. Whatever remedy is chosen should focus on that, not on carving out specific topics as no-go, which sends the wrong message (being terrible about GENSEX topics is bad, but being terrible elsewhere is okay?). If there's a desire to suggest an alternative remedy that stops short of a community ban, I would suggest some sort of "ban from article space, ban from project space, can present corrections / sources / suggestions on the talk page civilly" with an understanding that civil collaboration on the merits is welcome with an understanding that other editors might disagree with the suggestions and not implement or agree with them (but if they're really so good perhaps they'll be convincing). The barest hint of incivility toward good-faith editors leads to escalating blocks and/or the CBAN again. Well, that'd be my suggestion at least. SnowFire (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Pretty much agreed, a GENSEX topic ban doesn't cover it. If the CBAN proposal ends in no consensus because some editors feel it's overkill, an administrator should block bloodofox for somewhere around three months to stop a sitewide long-term pattern of disruption and personal attacks that a warning would not address. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per SnowFire, basically. Just strong enough to oppose outright. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• oppose per SnowFire. i've said above i'm sympathetic to solutions lesser than a CBAN, but this does not address the actual issue. the incivility is hardly limited to the GENSEX topic area, and therefore i don't see this as preventative. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 02:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Temporary oppose, per my comments above. I don't feel strongly on this either way, but I think it should wait for the ArbCom intervention that I truly hope is coming in the near future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowFire. This is not a GENSEX issue: this is an issue of how bloodofox engages with all editors who disagree with him, particularly in the area where he considers himself an expert. If there are wider issues with how GENSEX topics are handled generally (and I think that would be out of scope here anyway), they are clearly coincidental to the problem here, since the behaviour in question has happened over several pages with nothing to do with the topic. Some sort of non-total ban might work, but it would need to be one that actually covered all the bases. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• oppose for the same reasons I opposed a CBAN above. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose because this has very little to do with GENSEX. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. This feels poorly targeted to address the core issues. As far as I have seen here, we have one suggested incident where a certain reading of a couple of statements may have shown a reactionary attitude to a queer source. But it's highly speculative, and the behaviour/comments in question could easily just be :boo:'s habit--well-attested here--of hyperbolic overreaction to contrary perspectives and accompanying efforts to deploy vague and unsubstantiated labels as a cheap rhetorical tactic for undermining said perspectives. In any event, the core issues here are WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSION, WP:CIVILITY, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:STONEWALL. A GENSEX ban does nothing to address these concerns for the vast, vast majority of the problems that this user is having with treating their colleagues with respect. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowFire, Leekycauldron. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - because the behavioral issues are not solely in this area but are spread across multiple topics throughout the encyclopedia (as described in my comment in the section above.) Netherzone (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Though I think it's going to be a close-run thing, I believe it is likely that a complete CBAN will be found to be a bridge too far for too many community members to allow a sufficient consensus for that sanction. On the other end of the spectrum, the GENSEX topic ban is far too narrow and would fail to restrict the behaviours the community is objecting to so strongly here in the large majority of instances. And even if the TBAN were aimed at subjects which are much more at the center of :bloodofox:'s editorial activity/disputes, I believe it would still be viewed as sending an insufficient message of community concern, so voluminous and serious are the infractions of policy, and so wide-spread have the impacts clearly been on so many contributors and community members, from just the evidence provided here.{{pb}} So I suggest we try to keep our response within the framework of the escalation model of sanctions, but also make no bones about the fact that the issues here cannot be resolved with a warning or a slap on the wrist. Therefore I propose a six month community ban, non-appealable for the duration. Alternatively, we could leave open a community appeal after, say, four months, but permit no administrative appeal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Let's let the community move on and give :boo: a well-justified break, followed by the shortest amount of WP:ROPE on return. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I remain unconvinced that this will be enough, honestly, but agree with Snow Rise that this seems to be where the consensus is -- and it would be nice to have the opportunity to eat my words if it does indeed lead to a change in behaviour. I think any block/ban has to be general or almost entirely general, given the widespread nature of the issue and how it has moved between different topic areas, namespaces, and so on. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and I would have opposed this even if I agreed with it, because this is getting ridiculous (and completely unfair to bloodofox). You can't just keep flinging random sanctions at the wall when it looks like the previous one may fail, in the hope that one of them will stick. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :To be fair, we have a situation where most people in the cban discussion see a problem, but some are uncomfortable with a cban. It seems pretty natural that a couple alternatives would be proposed. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Excuse me, BK, but what exactly do you find to be "random" in the proposal? I believe I laid out a very specific and particularized argument for how this addresses the massive amount of community concerns expressed here without relying on a sledgehammer. Your implication that I am somehow trying to ramrod a proposal through with multiple bites at the apple is not only off-base, it is (bluntly speaking) reactionary and lazy. If you had actually taken the time to read my previous contributions to this thread, you would have seen that not only have I opposed both of the previous proposals, but I actually spent a lot of time over the days before Tamzin's first proposal trying to mitigate community ire at :boo: and urge restraint, despite that position being deeply unpopular. {{pb}} I feel this proposal balances community concerns against the best chance of retaining :boo:'s contributions in the longterm. If there was a more minimal sanction that I thought the community would have accepted, I very likely would have chosen that. But speaking plainly, if you think its realistic to expect this thread to end in no sanction, I'd suggest you take another review of the discussion above. I have not the slightest of issues with anyone opposing this sanction. But for you to imply I made this proposal flippantly, or as part of scattershot attempt to nail :boo: with a sanction no matter what, despite the amount of effort I put in to try to prevent a worst case scenario for them...well, that I do take exception to. I tend to expect much more careful commentary from you, honestly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Sorry if you disagree. I didn't suggest your proposal was "flippant" at all, but when we're on the third possible sanction here (one which actually isn't that different from a CBAN, considering that they are appealable after 6 months), it is unsurprising that I might get the idea that people are looking for "some sanction that might get traction", rather than "whether that sanction is reasonable". Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If a sanction 'gets traction' and there's consequent consensus for it then it is, in a consensus-based system, inherently 'reasonable', no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: Yes, but how many attempts do we need? Three is already too many, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm trying but struggling to understand this line of reasoning. Three different people have proposed three different solutions: that seems very standard in a discussion of how to solve a problem, be that a content dispute, workshopping a policy, or so on. It's pretty clear in both discussions above that the consensus is towards some sort of sanction -- there are one or two people advocating that the behaviour in question is fine as long as there really are problems with the articles in question, and possibly one or two suggesting a stern, logged warning, but nearly all objections to a CBAN are of the form "we need a block/ban, but it should be lighter than this". Similarly, nearly all objections to a TBAN are "this is too little". Concluding that the right approach is therefore to offer no sanction seems strange to me. I do see the (commendable) empathy that sitting through an ANI thread where your colleagues debate your shortcomings is a hugely unpleasant experience, but (as {{u|SchroCat}} says) the same empathy needs to be extended to those on the receiving end of the very behaviour that started this all off. Unless we have good reason to think that Bloodofox's behaviour will change without formal administrative action, letting them go without that is effectively inflicting the equally unpleasant -- if not more so -- experience of dealing with a repeatedly uncivil editor upon other members of the community. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: To make myself clear, if someone had suggested three different sanctions in the first place and said to people "which of these (or none) do you think reasonable?", I don't think that is an issue. It was simply that reading this thread, we had the CBAN which has headed towards a lack of consensus, and then the TBAN was tried (that went down poorly), and then we had this one. I am sure you will understand on that basis why I made that oppose comment above, even if you disagree with it. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I suppose I understand the rationale, though I can't share your view of its merits. At any rate, thank you for clarifying it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::To be clear, what I take exception to in your response is {{tq|"You can't just keep flinging random sanctions at the wall when it looks like the previous one may fail, in the hope that one of them will stick."}}. I didn't support either of the previous two proposals (in fact, I objected to both of them as unproductive), and arguably no one put more time and energy into trying to prevent a hasty or excessive sanction over course of this discussion. I believe the proposal is the most minimal sanction that can be reasonably said to align with the community consensus/sentiment expressed above. That is why I made it. Not to sandbag :boo:. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think there's any fundamental disagreement. We heard a cry of burn the witch and some people didn't like that. Then we got duck the witch and some people didn't like that. Now we've got put the witch in jail and see if that makes her stop witching and most people seem to like that. I can only see that as consensus building. It could have been neater, but that's the breaks... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. I don't see this as unfair to BOO: he's had a couple of blocks, a visit to AE and a TBAN. This is also about the 'fairness' to other users who have to deal with him and who have faced an extremely unpleasant reception (cf the Braucherei thread). This at least covers the relevant, multiple areas of his disruptive manner of interaction while stops well short of the nuclear option of the CBAN. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I cannot find any reason not to oppose this. This is a good solution for the long term issues with the editor. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Black Kite's sentiment, but I also think this is closest to what policy dictates. As I said before, bloodofox should've gotten a short, preventative block when they made (yet another) personal attack here three days ago, but they didn't. At this point we, the community, just have to admit that no uninvolved admin has the guts to block this longtime editor for personal attacks and we'll have to do it ourselves. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Eh. A cban is typically appealable in 6 months. With so many people, even those of us supporting a cban, agreeing that Bloodofox does good content work, he is a solid case for an appeal. The only difference between this sanction and a cban, then, is a cban requires communication of understanding of the problem and committing to doing better. Why is this way preferable, other than "escalating blocks for escalating blocks' sake"? Support as distant second choice — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Well, there are a couple of ways in which this proposal was tailored to be less onerous than a CBAN. For one thing, its terms have the block ending automatically at six month, not setting the clock for appeal there. While it's true that most CBANs are appealable after six months (and sometimes one year), in practice I don't think it would go well for :boo:. The numbers and the sentiments here do not suggest that such an appeal would be easy going. {{pb}}There's also the factor that :boo: has struggled to produce a substantial mea culpa throughout this discussion. I believe their pride is hurt here and that if, after being blocked, they also had to make a detailed statement detailing what needed to change in their approach, they might just decide to stay off the project. That is not how I'd like to see this resolve, so I crafted for an option that would allow them to hopefully take the community's concerns on board over the duration of their enforced break, but that would also not cause them to suffer further bruised pride on returning. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support This makes sense and hopefully will both get the message across about civility and retain an editor valued for their expertise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. With regret I have to agree with UC and SchroCat. Other editors shouldn't have to put up with opposition so vehement. Tim riley talk 14:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Blocking without the right of appeal seems against the spirit of our philosophy; even LTAs get the right. And I can't see anything in WP:BLOCK or WP:APPEAL that justifies—or, for that matter, allows—overriding policy. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Fortuna, I don't want this to come off as glib, but I don't know a better way to say it: this is the standard policy. Almost every WP:CBAN you see includes the language "this ban is first appealable after six months", or something to that effect; the only way this proposal differs from that usual standard is by making the end of this CBAN automatic at that point: that is to say, a much lower threshold to ending the CBAN, not a higher one. The polices you cite (WP:BLOCK and WP:APPEAL), are only sufficient in themselves to describe administrative blocks. Under WP:CBAN, the community has always had the ability to set extra conditions on preventing unblocks, and this authority is regularly exercised at ANI. The remedy for the blocked party if they think the community has been unreasonable in applying this prerogative is appeal to the Arbitration Commitee (see WP:UNBAN). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've only ever had productive interactions with Bloodofox on Wikipedia. As far as I can see he is right on the merits in just about every dispute he's been involved with. He's done a lot of great article work. That's not the only thing that matters but it's not nothing either. He could be more diplomatic, it's true, but he's not really ever been blocked before and six months seems like a lot. Haukur (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as they can just sit out the six months and potentially go right back to their behavior that brought them here in the first place. What is needed is an acknowledgement of the concerns raised here, and a clear statement that they will strive to do better, which would naturally be part of any request to be unbanned per the CBAN proposal. They have been an editor for 20 years, so they obviously know they should be following our editorial and behavioral policies and guidelines. So in my view, this proposal looks like we are just kicking the proverbial can down the road. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment (involved): I prefer a longer sanction. Bloodofox makes content disputes more complicated—doesn't provide sources; constant implied expertise; won't participate in dispute resolution; derides and discredits anyone who doesn't agree with him; inflammatory as a feature and not a bug (i.e., he wants people to get mad so he can say stuff like this). His approach makes a venue like ANI significantly less effective, as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=875332364#Bloodofox previous ANI close] shows. It makes basic incivility and battlegrounding look chivalrous. Any outcome that passes the buck back to the community, including potentially new editors, harms editor retention and thus our content. I don't like the "escalating sanctions" argument for this reason: he benefits from an ANI model that makes resolving complex content disputes hard, if not impossible, notwithstanding issues dealing with "authority" figures here (i.e., the same reason for the previous Ignore All Rules unblock).

:* A brief aside: I looked through some old posts and saw loads of attacks (and responses, frequently from now-retired editors) that could easily be in this thread. But—and being frank—looking through the early contribs made me sympathetic to anyone suggesting ArbCom review. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Der_Blutharsch&diff=prev&oldid=16852003 Edits like this] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%BDr&diff=prev&oldid=31922901 this] affect my interpretation of Tamzin's analysis regarding bloodofox's culture war-ry "all trans history is activism" take, attacks aimed at two publicly queer editors, etc. White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right love Old Norse stuff (e.g., Soldiers of Odin; Odinism; Asatru Folk Assembly). These are enough to make me think, yeah, maybe this needs more investigation.

: Anyway, I'm not that active at ANI. I've been a participant in, I think, 3-4 threads. I don't know how much grace we provide on the basis of process. That is probably why I don't understand why we are trying quite hard to retain an editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bloodofox&diff=prev&oldid=1294893679 actively resents collaboration via Talk] (cf. this and this). Atrocious conduct that is, certainly over the past year, deeply net negative, and getting worse. Why extend a process-based courtesy to an editor who provides it to nobody else (i.e., ignoring 19 suggestions of dispute resolution across the FAR & Talk)? Regrettably I don't doubt disruption will continue given he is increasingly outraged every year. After 20 years of his tactics being effective I can't fathom why anyone thinks that it change because of a 6-month time out. Obviously I don't oppose it if this is what the community decides there is consensus for. If a CBAN is nuclear, a 6-month block is standing in the hall until class is over. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm going to protest your aside here. Two 2005 diffs in which Bloodofox fails to rise above the then-standards of Wikipedia in including unreferenced essayistic content, and shows an embarrassing lack of awareness of the gravity of a charge of nazi symbolism in Germany. Used to insinuate that Bloodofox and all who "love Old Norse stuff" may have something further to do with "White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right". That's a smear by association that doesn't pass the smell test, and I will not let it pass without objection. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Wow, dredging up edits from twenty years ago. Yes, it's a smear. Carlstak (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::So, it's not enough evidence of a pattern if no one goes back far enough in the edit history, but if someone does, it's a smear? -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Your words, not mine. Carlstak (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Er, no? I haven't called this either of those things. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I didn't say " it's not enough evidence of a pattern if no one goes back far enough in the edit history, but if someone does, it's a smear". Your "So" implies that perhaps that was my intended meaning, as you well know. Consider the possibility that I thought it was a bit much to dredge up edits from twenty years ago, and insinuating that Bloodofox and all who "love Old Norse stuff" may have something further to do with "White supremacists, Nazis, and the far-right" is a smear. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Carlstak, I think you should be reading @ImaginesTigers' post with the knowledge that they themselves have a significant interest in Old Norse stuff. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Context is everything. Must say, seems odd that you're addressing only me—I was affirming what Yngvadottir said. 03:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Would you mind quoting {{tq|bloodofox's culture war-ry "all trans history is activism" take}}? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Zanahary, see Tamzin's post at the top of the cban subthread. -- asilvering (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I read it. What did BOO say that amounts to that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Zanahary, I'll quote the relevant section from @Tamzin's post: {{tq|He thinks Wade, a professional medievalist whose paper appears in the Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature, is an activist source because he cites Leslie Feinberg. This is, transparently, an objection that a queer editor has cited a queer scholar who cited a queer thinker to analyze queer medieval history. The implication is clear: There is no queer medieval history. Anyone who writes about it is actually promoting an agenda.}} bloodofox has referred to Erik Wade, a professional medievalist writing in his professional capacity for a literature handbook by an academic press, as an activist source. -- asilvering (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Right, so he called a scholar an activist for citing an activist. He didn’t say anything like that all transgender history is activism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I mean, you've essentially said the same thing twice though. Saying that a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people is like saying a historian of Judaism should never cite anyone who's done activism against antisemitism. It's both an impossible standard and makes less than zero sense. Loki (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|Saying that a historian of trans people should never cite anyone who's done activism for trans people}}

::::::::Good lord, can anyone advocating for a ban here do so without such distortions? Bloodofox did not say this. If you have to construct these wild paraphrases and can’t pull any quotes to support them, your case for sanctions is too weak. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What Loki said, and also: when bloodofox says Wade – an academic writing for an academic publisher – is an "activist", what exactly is Wade supposed to be an activist for? For queer visibility? That's where you run up against the heavy implication that under this standard, any acknowledgement of queer medieval history is "activism", not real history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This is not really the right place to have this discussion, but the difference here would be between a specialist encyclopedia (which this is) and (say) an article or chapter on this topic in a much broader history book. It requires an understanding of how the academic publishing model works in the humanities and related topics. Wade absolutely is an academic writing for an academic publisher, but the whole point of a specialist encyclopedia on this topic is to increase the visibility and discourse on the topic (which is a good thing, for the avoidance of doubt). I would not have used the word 'activist' but I would take note of the framing used by Wade and look for other writing on the topic to see what other views there are. This is not an easy thing to do sometimes. It is something that in theory the editors of the encyclopedia are meant to do, but it is not always possible to assess if that happens. Sometimes, then, you have to look to reviews of the publication (here, one of a large number of encyclopedias produced by Routledge) to see how the wider academic community received it (if they paid it that level of attention). Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Calling a single scholar an activist implies that an entire field is activism? And heavily, at that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Tamzin's analysis looks on the money to me. Wade is (with apologies to him) a run-of-the-mill queer scholar of the Early Middle Ages; the Routledge Handbook is about as representative an example of the field as one could pick; citing thinkers within a movement but outside academia is completely standard, as I said at the FAR, in this and similar fields such as feminist, Marxist and so on historiography. Bloodofox could have produced evidence to say that one of these was untrue, but chose to simply repeat the claim that endorsing the ideas of Leslie Feinberg -- and let's be clear, Feinberg is not a protester on Twitter, but one of the defining figures of the field of gender studies -- makes the piece "activist scholarship". Even then, I'm concerned that arguing against sanctions here are missing the point. The outcomes of the content dispute(s) in which Bloodofox showed uncivil and uncollegial behaviour are completely irrelevant. Even if Bloodofox were completely in the right, that is not enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support in the interest of not letting perfect be the enemy of good here, but it's a second choice to a full CBAN. If this has been an issue since 2018 through multiple sanctions I do not have confidence that bloodofox would ever voluntarily stop. Loki (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Loki: Regarding 2018, I can see a comment from 2011, from Barsoomian (retired) that honestly could be in this thread at Talk:Thor's archive: {{purple|from bloodofox's disparaging comments, since you are backing him up, I assumed your shared his reasoning}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThor&diff=444227490&oldid=444012161 chain diffs]), and they were indeed backing him up at great length. Looks like they were opposing the inclusion of any TV or film because Barsoomian was biased against pre-WW1 sources (?). Certainly looks like the same pattern going back further. Looks like tag teaming to me, honestly, with a contributor who is in this very thread on his side. I believe the problem goes back much further than 2018. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Now there's a pertinent 14 year old discussion. Not sure I would buy the "tag-teaming" accusation, or your description of what happened there, though. As far as flinging linguini to the wall goes, one could also wonder why [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1&diff=next&oldid=1294090673 this recent comment] of yours in the very FAR which led to the filing of this request had to be revision deleted. Was it a policy violation, by any chance? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::By definition, if something has been revision deleted, its contents are not to be made public -- I can't imagine, therefore, that we tolerate people speculating about what may have been in it, since the person who wrote it can't explain themselves. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::True, that said, admins or the person who made the edit could say whether it indeed fit WP:CRD. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - based on my rationale in the CBAN section; which they can appeal in 6 months. I think that is a better solution, however if that proposal does not achieve consensus, then I would support this block. Netherzone (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Noting here for clarity that this my second choice, based on the fact that the issue is not whether or not the editor is "right" about content, but rather about the ongoing battlegrounding and incivility in multiple venues across the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per my explicit suggestion of this remedy above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - six months will be enough for Bloodofox to have a chance to adjust their attitude, while leaving open the door for more sanctions if necessary.

:MiasmaEternal☎ 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Content-war PvP nonsense. Black Kite nails the situation above. Carrite (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, as second choice compared to a CBAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Second choice per Rhododendrites and PMC—although pedantically I'd argue that a community-imposed unappealable block is a ban, not just a block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not appropriate to try and hamper the community as to when something can be appealed or not. No comment on whether a block or community ban may be appropriate - but trying to say that it is not appealable is an improper restriction on the future community. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per my oppose in the CBan section and per the concerns raised by Black Kite (it used to be a principle to lay out alternatives at the start, rather than workshop as you go along, which can skew the discussion and polling). I am sure if, for example, evidence came to light of battleground behaviour by some of those supporting these proposals, then the community would want to revisit such a block. What is not being seen here is the views of the editors who have had productive interactions with Bloodofox, most of whom will not be aware of this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't actually think any of these are specifically tailored to preventing or reforming the conduct, which is largely incivility towards other editors over a range of topics. In my mind, either it's unfixable and we indef, or we have a sanction where we try to remedy the problem. I haven't interacted with them enough to be at the "enough is enough" stage that some of the other users are, and I think at this point I'd be happier with a formal warning that an indef is on the table if this doesn't improve, along with a limited, possibly voluntary short term topic ban for some of the topics listed above just to cool things down a little bit. That being said, I'm not against this. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose all these repeated requests feel like the Wikipedia equivalent of barratry. After reading the FAR I can understand bloodofox's frustration. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose based on my rationale in the CBAN proposal vote. Also not impressed with the stream of proposed sanctions being procured as the previous one approaches failure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm going to make one last effort to set the record straight here, and then I'm washing my hands of this entire mess of a discussion and its multi-directional ABF, and let the chips fall as they may for both :boo: and the community. Because this is about the fourth time that someone has implied that this proposal is part of an effort to "get" :boo: at all costs, a fly-by characterization that does not even remotely reflect what is going on here, as would be immediately obvious to anyone who did their due diligence in reviewing the discussion before !voting. Here's what actually happened and what motivated this proposal:{{pb}}First off, I am not involved in any of the underlying disputes and have no axe to grind against :boo:. On the contrary, for the first few days of this discussion, I was the only one making consistent efforts to resolve this matter without a sanction. I attempted to build a bridge between :boo: and their accusers, hoping that concerns could be addressed on both sides, and I have argued repeatedly for WP:ROPE. In the first few days, Yngvadottir and I were the only advocates for restraint as dozens of (reasonably) irate editors flooded the discussion to share their own stories of frustrating run-ins with :boo:. While sympathetic to those complaints, I still didn't see any reason why the concerns couldn't be addressed more constructively than with a sanction. {{pb}} However, a meeting of the minds proved impossible because :boo: was more than a little WP:IDHT, and the complainants were unyielding in wanting concrete action to be taken. After a series of back-and-forths with individual editors, I decided to let the matter drop, because I did not wish to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with my appeals on :boo:'s behalf. Because at the end of the day, the complaints had merit and I felt that if I hadn't managed to convince anyone to endorse a lighter touch at that point, I wasn't going to.{{pb}} I then was uninvolved in the thread for about a day and a half. When I next checked on it, I discovered the situation had escalated to sanction proposals, and very severe proposals at that. The full CBAN proposal felt excessive to me, given the lack of previous stepped-sanctions, so I opposed it. Likewise, I felt the TBAN proposal was poorly-considered and opposed that too. I made this proposal hoping it would be adopted instead of the (still popular at the time) CBAN. Far from being an attempt to get :boo: at any cost (as one editor implied despite all evidence to the contrary, with others following suit) it was meant to be a more measured alternative. I specifically chose the least severe sanction I thought might be adopted, given the tone of the discussion at that time. If anyone thinks I relished the idea of proposing a block for a veteran editor a week before their 20th anniversary on the project, they can very much think again. My primary aim was to throw a significant bone to those who wanted action while still keeping a subject matter expert from being CBANNED to the tune of an outright indef. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Also, bluntly speaking, not only are comments implying that this was a ruthless effort to corner :boo: completely and obviously false, but those arguing that there is something odd or inappropriate in the procedural history of this discussion are also completely off-base. There have been, at a minimum, many hundreds of discussions at ANI over the years that have included three or more proposals made in rapid succession. It is not in the remotest sense atypical for a discussion here to proceed through multiple stages where the range of appropriate responses is narrowed to something the community can agree upon.{{pb}} Nor is :boo: a victim here that needs to be shielded from mob mentality. I have consistently felt the best solution here would be rapprochement between :boo: and those they have rubbed wrong, rather than a sanction. But neither did the volume and intensity of the complaints against them in this discussion come out of nowhere. A substantial amount of evidence has been presented that :boo: has for years deployed a combination of aggression and gatekeeping in their rhetoric during disputes. That does have to change, or they won't have much of a future here, regardless of how this discussion ends. Again, I'd be perfectly comfortable with a sanction-less result to this discussion--it's what I advocated for from the start. But anyone who implies, intentionally or otherwise, that this discussion is part of a meritless witch-hunt against :boo: is doing them absolutely no favors: it is bar-none the very last thing they need to hear from us if we are going to keep them on-project and benefit from their knowledge and contributions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::FWIW I - and I suspect many, many others, saw this proposal as a sensible response to the far-too heavy CBAN and off-target topic ban. It's a reasonable and sensible compromise and has garnered broad support, more votes than oppose and (IMHO) stronger reasoning from support voters. There is a wide sense that something needs to happen. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Huh. I didn’t imply any of this. I said I’m not impressed with the stream of sanctions that emerges again with every successive failure, which is true. I didn’t say anything about you, because it’s not a personal comment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::: I'm sorry, but intentionally or not, that does imply that there was a conscious objective in this proposal to create a back-up plan to make sure :boo: got sanctioned. Which was really the opposite of what was going on here: I was trying to prevent an indefinite CBAN by proffering instead the most limited alternative sanction I thought the community might accept instead. The CBAN discussion was not "approaching failure" at the time that I made this proposal: it had strong support. It still does, but at the time support was more uniform. This proposal was offered as an alternative to minimize the consequences for :boo:, not to a cast a wider net for them. {{pb}}Now, I'm happy to AGF that your intended meaning was (somehow) not to imply that the proposal was a redundancy to make sure that :boo: got blocked, if you say so. But if I do that, I must also ask you to realize that such a reading is unavoidable, given what you wrote. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, see my oppose to the CBAN proposal above. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Having read the history of personal attacks that turn content disputes into conduct, something needs to be done. There is no right answer, and this is a less wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• support as a compromise. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 01:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of introducing time limited blocks that are unappealable. Editors who are blocked can appeal during the block, editors who are community banned aren't put on the naughty step for a time out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• note for the closer: AD and a few other voters oppose the no-appeal clause while not commenting on the substance of the block – I'd suggest that the no-appeal clause be treated as severable from the block itself, if those opposes would drag this towards a no consensus close. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :For clarity I'm neutral on any block or tban separately proposed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose IDK why this would be expected to pass if the proposal above it failed _pbp 03:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :The above proposal failed largely because people viewed it as too narrow, so it should go without saying why a broader sanction would be more amenable to many. Do you have a substantive objection, or is this oppose merely a procedural misunderstanding? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately, given bloodofox's lack of later participation, which IMO should not be rewarded. Civility is one of the easiest things to fix, in theory. Really just committing to accepting that as well as accepting that bloodofox's "opponents" are not actually demons out to destroy scholarship with lies would have gone a long way. As that was not forthcoming, there's no other choice than here. I think bloodofox has a lot to offer and did a lot of good work on Wikipedia, but this level of incivility and ownership just is not worth the cost. SnowFire (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• This also has nothing to do with bloodofox's conduct himself, but I have to say that the "oppose" rationales on claims of "too many sanctions proposed" make absolutely zero sense, and should be entirely discarded as not engaging with the very real conduct problem here. It'd be one thing if a single editor was proposing five different sanctions, but these were proposed by three different editors, and one proposed sanction was very quickly shot down. What exactly are people who support an escalating sanction to convey the seriousness of the matter to do? Mind control the earlier proposers to only have proposed the remedy they support? SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with a six month ban as a compromise, and am really pretty befuddled by all the oppose votes that ultimately stem from different people having different ideas on how to resolve the same issue. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose non-appealable sanctions, period. Levivich (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose What Levivich said. Carlstak (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and support warnings as my comments indicate below. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:*Oppose - Since when do we impose non-appealable sanctions in cases like this? This process is beginning to devolve into something I don't like.

:Riposte97 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Pulling out a couple of procedural points here, mainly centred around awareness and visibility of these proposals to both the wider community and to User:Bloodofox.

• (1) The section header that shows up for users using the mobile phone version of Wikipedia simply says "User:Bloodofox". It says nothing about a community ban. This section was added several days later by Tamzin. The collapsed ANI threads showing on mobile view unfortunately allow community ban proposals like this to end up 'hidden' to the subset of the community who cannot be bothered to uncollapse the thread. This can skew the polling.
• (2) User:Bloodofox has not contributed since the comments made here on 12 June. The community ban proposal was made on 14 June. They may be unaware that a community ban discussion is taking place.
• (3) Tamzin does not appear to have notified Bloodofox (either by ping or talk page message) of the Community Ban proposal.

There is a reason why this happens in sometimes chaotic and sprawling ANI discussions. This is both why I avoided ANI for many years and why I think at one point it was proposed that community ban discussions needed to take place at WP:AN rather than ANI but I may be way out of date here. Anyway, I hate editing on my phone, so if anyone can help work out what to do here (e.g. leave a talk page notification for Bloodofox and maybe adjust the main header to reflect that a community ban discussion has resulted from the initial discussion), that would help a lot. I won't do this myself as I am not 100% sure what the current procedure is for community ban discussions regarding such notifications and visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I pinged BOO in the edit summary of the ban proposal. I can't very well control their decision to not edit, but there are no procedural defects here. BOO has been extended every courtesy we extend to anyone else nominated for a ban. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::This feels like an effort to try to invalidate a consensus-based discussion based on nitpicking that doesn't even have a policy basis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It is because community bans are a serious sanction that there are procedures and guidance that should be followed. Could you please engage in good faith with what I said. How would you feel if you took a break and came back to find it had escalated to this? Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I would probably not have opted to take a break during a lengthy discussion about my behavior, so as to ensure that nothing important was missed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hmm-hmm. ANI flu does exist, but so do other events in people's lives. I have learnt to always err on the side of not making assumptions about why someone hasn't come back to a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think it's ANI flu or a freak emergency – I think bloodofox has probably recognized that they can't improve their position by protesting more than they already have, and they're not planning on admitting wrongdoing. I think they're watching this discussion and would have been aware of the CBAN proposal with or without a ping, but they've taken their hands off the keyboard. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The person who introduced the "take a break" phrasing was you, Carcharoth. If you recall, the question as asked was "How would you feel if you took a break...", and my response was to say I would not have taken one. Please don't try to frame this as though I was making any kind of assumption about why bloodofox was not currently editing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was obvious that the phrasing "How would you feel if you took a break and came back to find it had escalated to this?" was actually meant to prompt consideration and empathy with Bloodofox, not to be a question literally about how you would feel. The phrase "take a break" was not intended to be precise, but there is every possibility that is what this is. An attempt to walk away for a few days from a heated situation. No way to tell. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm glad to hear you found my clarification helpful. We wouldn't want someone reading this thread to think you were accusing me of making assumptions based on phrasing you introduced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to lie, Carcharoth, this is pretty cringe. There are no procedural issues here. You haven't cited a single guideline, just your feeling that the guy you like deserves special treatment. Be an adult and step back like the rest of us, and let the community reach whatever consensus it reaches. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please don't make this personal. I would do the same for any editor where I noticed this (you included). I genuinely believe that there will be people currently actively editing who will have missed this discussion for the reasons I give. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well I look forward to seeing you do so for ~100% of CBAN proposals in the future, then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Any editor where I notice this. So not 100%, no. I did ask you not to make this personal. I am still at a loss as to why you have said "the guy you like" (no idea where you get that from) and "be an adult". I am not aware of any past history I have with Bloodofox (but might be forgetting). You, rightly, disclosed your past interactions in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1295494347 your post three days ago] when you proposed the community ban. I went to that diff to check whether the ping had worked, and noticed that you pinged User:Generalissima as well. That is absolutely the right thing to do (they started the thread), but the more I have been thinking about this the more it makes me uneasy. The past history here feels all wrong. I would have had no problem with someone uninvolved proposing the ban, but it does feel too easy to draw lines here connecting events. It looks bad, even though you disclosed the mentor-mentee relationship. Disclosing something like that does not mean it can simply be discounted. Anyway, you left the closer (and those reading this, not all of whom will be commenting) to make their own judgement on that. I will post something about the timings below and leave this here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No past history with Bloodofox? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Carcharoth&offset=20250515&limit=5 You're on the same side in the content dispute that immediately precipitated this.] We could also get into your recent Wikipediocracy posts about trans issues (an account you disclose on-wiki), which were an explicit response to my criticism at WP:A/R/C of people who push the POV you favor, and immediately preceded your showing up here to oppose my proposal to ban someone who wants to remove or downplay coverage of trans history. So yes, I've disclosed my bias here. Have you disclosed yours? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I thought the involvement in the immediate history was obvious. Yes, I have posted in that discussion on that talk page, and I have posted at the FAR [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1296046628 here]. I don't think it is helpful to characterise what is taking place there as "sides" (that is battleground language). It is more nuanced than that (I am coming round to the viewpoint that Wade's conclusions on Feinberg should be explicitly mentioned in the 'Bæddel and bædling' article). What I meant by no past history, is that (responding to your "the guy you like" comment) I have not had (to my knowledge) any extensive prior interactions with Bloodofox, though I might have done, as it is difficult to remember everything. I had forgotten about that 10-year-old page you found in my userspace. Trip down memory lane. Thank you! (It really might be best to leave this here.) Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, Tamzin. I missed that you had pinged Bloodofox in your edit summary. I personally would have left a talk page notice, but whether you think a ping is sufficient is up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I hate to disagree with the same person twice in 10 minutes, but making sure that an editor who is being proposed for a ban is aware of the fact seems praiseworthy to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I certainly wouldn't have minded an inquiry as to "Hey did you ever notify BOO of the ban thread?" I'm objecting to an entire separate subsection alleging procedural irregularities, 1/3 of which was a valid concern but based on a faulty premise and 2/3 of which is complete nonsense (almost all CBAN proposals happen under level-3 headings, and are never delayed just because someone gets ANI flu). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Carcharoth is certainly correct on the mobile point. I was alarmed to open this thread after a couple of days by chance, and see that the complaint had progressed to CBAN and other proposals. That's not an attack on Tamzin at all, but I will perhaps suggest a corrective to the mobile dev team. Riposte97 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

One more (hopefully final point): I believe the 72 hours given in WP:CBAN runs from the point Tamzin put up the proposal (at 03:20, 14 June 2025 UTC)? The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=973319444#RfC:_Increase_minimum_length_for_site_ban_discussions RfC from 2020] linked there (increasing the minimum duration from 24 hours to 72 hours) is interesting reading. I was reading that to see what the general feeling on this was then. I also wasn't imagining it that WP:AN is the "preferred" venue, but I have seen enough ANI threads evolve into CBAN discussions to know that the ideal rarely happens in practice, including giving the person facing the ban a chance to respond, but I am sure whoever closes this will be able to address that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:bloodofox is warned that comments like:

• "If you can't function on even the most basic level on Wikipedia, then maybe spend your time doing something else." [1]
• "obnoxious ... topics you clearly don't understand the first thing about" [2]
• calling editors censors ("would-be censors" [3], "I encourage any editor to aggressively push back at any attempts at censorship, which is exactly what this is." [4])
• callings editors "activists" [5]
• bludgeoning and aggressively doubling down on accusations of RGW [6] [7], "RGW crusades" [8], "Wikipedia editors who call out and reject clear examples of WP:RGW are helping the project and should be commended for the effort, while attempts at WP:RGW should be aggressively rooted out." [9], "That's an explicit attempt at WP:RGW and should see hard pushback." [10], "No, this is about as clear a case of WP:RGW I've seen and I will highlight it." [11]
• "If this is how you're operating on this site, someone needs to comb through your other edits." [12]

...are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and admins are encouraged to block for any further violations.

• Support as proposer. (I sympathize with :boo:'s request for specific diffs, so I've listed some that I think are clear policy violations; some of the diffs are repeated because they fall into multiple categories.) There's a well-known hole in our sanctions regime for civility, particularly for situations that fall in between "nothingburger" and "insta-ban." WP:ABANs, WP:TBANs, and WP:PBLOCKs aren't applicable here because the conduct isn't limited to a particular page or topic area. Blocks aren't appropriate now because WP:NOTPUNITIVE. The conduct isn't so extreme or frequent as to merit a WP:CBAN (IMO, but also in the opinion of about half the voters in the proposal above). But I don't think we should do nothing. The advantage of a warning, even though there have been previous warnings from years ago, is that it documents the policy violation, documents that it happened now and that the community agrees it was a policy violation, and gives admins clearer guidance to block if the policy violation is repeated. I hope it's not repeated, but if it is, I hope the warning will make it easier for an admin (or the community) to impose further preventative sanctions next time. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support because again I don't think perfect should be the enemy of good. But I do think this isn't enough, so this is second choice for me behind any sanction with teeth. Loki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I agree this is needed. Gentle persuasion isn't a great strategy for boiling frogs, but sometimes it can net you a fancy coat. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Not going to oppose, but also reluctant to pretend a warning means anything at all regarding issues that have been raised by many people many times over many years in many topic areas, with one topic ban and formal warning in the past. I don't read any of the oppose !votes above as the sort that would have supported if only there were a second formal warning on the books. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :For me, it's not the quantity of the warnings but the recency. (Of course people will have different views on how recent is recent enough.) Levivich (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Different views on how recent is recent enough indeed. The formal warning was in December 2023. How many days should this one be considered valid? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I suspect you are making reference to this warning related to religious views in the Falun Gong AE case? It is of course still valid, but unless I'm mistaken nothing in evidence here shows a violation of that warning? This warning, on the other hand, is not narrowly construed as that one was, it covers all the civility and bludgeoning bases. Imagine that a closer concludes that the indef proposal does not have consensus but that the time-limited proposal does. There will be no grovel session to be closed with flashing hazards when editing rights are restored. Having a clearly-formulated broad warning written now does not seem to me to be a bad idea, whether further action is taken or not, as it clearly guides admins concerning what people who looked into this case thought was needed. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, that's the one -- the warning about personalizing disputes/speculating about motives coming out of a case based on fundamental civility/agf/npa stuff, sitting alongside the other [informal] pointers, suggestions, warnings, grievances, and pleas of the past, as well as a topic ban that was needed in an altogether separate area, not to mention two decades of experience with wikipolicy. But to your point: let's say, against all odds, we incredibly missed a diff and it turned out there had been a broad warning on civility issues in the past roughly identical to this one. Would you be switching to support on the cban above? If so, I concede this would be a nonzero outcome. Though I wouldn't blame you for declining to answer a hypothetical. Either way, I don't think I have anything else useful to add to this thread. Its trajectory makes me think my time tonight is better spent in articlespace. (turns out our articles on NYC mayoral candidates are pretty bad.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Already here, I have not opposed the IAR unappealable time-limited block, admittedly in part because it saves sinking time into one (or more) of those often-grudgy appeals procedures. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::180-365; one or two a year is a reasonable allotment to any editor. Levivich (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support It's clear there's a problem. It's equally clear, that while most of us agree there is a problem, we don't agree about how to solve it. A logged warning that makes it clear a continuation of the problem will lead to more severe consequences seems a reasonable step we can take. It might not be enough but if it isn't we can address future issues when they arise. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as an empty gesture. If we aren't going to do anything, we shouldn't do anything, rather than saying that we aren't going to do any thing now and might do something in a few months. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weak%20sauce weak sauce]. bloodofox already knows that comments like those listed are against policy, and there is no requirement that admins block for future violations, but instead, left to their discretion. This proposal also lacks a provision that bloodofox acknowledge their problematic behavior and a commitment from him to do better. If previous warnings have already been ignored, then I have no expectation that this warning will curtail their chronic behavioral problems. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I would like to change your and Robert's minds about this. I think that while this shouldn't be your first choice, you shouldn't oppose unless you actually think bloodofox has done nothing wrong at all here.
• :The reason is, imagine how this goes next time bloodofox gets taken to ANI or AE. If we don't even warn him, he can easily say "Oh yeah, 6-12 months ago there was a big hullabaloo about my behavior, but there wasn't even consensus for a warning! Clearly that means the community didn't think I actually did anything wrong." And it's not even a bad argument! That usually is what that means!
• :I think opposing sanctions solely because they're too weak is assuming something way past good faith of the next group to take this up. It's assuming that the next group to take this up will go through a ton of extra effort to preserve the exact intent of your !vote. You need to believe that, even after a consensus has been reached, the next group of people will read this entire long discussion down to your specific opinion and realize that you and a handful of others were opposing from the opposite side of normal, and furthermore that that will be taken as evidence that if this handful of people did not oppose than consensus *would* have been reached on a warning, and then even furthermore that they take that as equivalent to a warning. Why make all those assumptions when you can just support a warning? Loki (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Sure. I support a cban because I believe this behaviour is chronic and will not change. If the behaviour indeed does not change, following this proposal, bloodofox will get to do it one more time, and then will be blocked. Late is better than never. So be it. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as insufficient, though clearly preferable to doing literally nothing. The arguments in favour seem to badly misunderstand either/both the policy and the situation. We have ""No" personal attacks actually means that occasional personal attacks are fine, or that personal attacks are actually a good thing if the other editor is wrong/not very skilled. WP:CONLEVELS applies here -- a small group of editors can't overrule site-wide consensus, manifested in clearly-worded policy. We then have the line that this is somehow a first or early offence, and therefore sanctions should be applied next time -- when there is clear evidence of this behaviour happening over years (and far more than occasionally in the recent period), despite formal warnings from admins and topic bans, and without any acknowledgement of wrongdoing. This is next time. A warning in this situation would be clearly insufficient and send a worrying message about the standards of behaviour the community will tolerate. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm not going to oppose or support, because I think this is a hollow proposal. A CBAN is best for the community given the range and quantity of harmful behaviors to multiple editors in multiple topics spanning across years, from 2016, 2018, 2020, 2023, 2024, 2025. The unacceptable behaviors are a chronic pattern, and there have already been various warnings. How much more harm is OK before it becomes not-OK? If there was some inkling that BOO was willing to take responsibility I might feel differently, but there's just radio silence. There have been no attempts apologize or efforts to see things through the other person's lens; no movement towards mending fences. Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Why wasn't this just a 24 hour sitewide block for PAs (or whatever length deemed suitable), increasing incrementally for future violations all the way to indef? Seems like a nobrainer to me if we're looking to actually correct boo's behaviour. How on earth have they never been blocked for PAs, WP:FOC isn't advice, it's policy. Can admins just be bold please? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support this or escalating blocks. I'm not convinced that a CBAN is merited in this case. I guess I don't see the civility issues as more disruptive than pushing FRINGE ideas. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Buidhe, this presumes that everyone bloodofox has been nasty to has been pushing FRINGE ideas, which is far from the case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I certainly don't mean that that so I apologize if I was unclear. However, in some cases the editor was arguing against FRINGE editors and in those cases I see those editors as more disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't mean any personal offense here Buidhe, but that is precisely the attitude which has enabled and encouraged the most problematic behaviour being discussed here, and similar from many of our most quarrelsome users in community spaces involving discussion of fringe content. {{pb}}For one thing, there is never going to be universal agreement (even among experienced, good-faith editors) whom the POV pushers are in FRINGE spaces, so the notion that one should get a free pass (or just reduced accountability) for violating CIV, AGF and other behavioural norms, so long as they "really, really convinced" it is for the good of the project in anti-FRINGE terms is absolutely useless as a standard or an operational rule of thumb. {{pb}}But even more to the core of the matter, even if you think FRINGE violations are, as a class, overwhelmingly more damaging to the work of the project than behavioural violations (which I think falls apart as a generalized presumption pretty quickly under close scrutiny), it would still be a manifestly bad idea to encourage that FRINGE POV pushing/SPAs be met with lowered standards for conduct from the regular editorial corps. Because flame warring doesn't actually solve those issues in any way. It just makes the entire periphery of the content area that much more susceptible to WP:disruption, obfuscation of the actual editorial solutions, and community time sinks sorting it all out. {{pb}} We don't have a special need in FRINGE areas to let hotheads off the leash to engage in flame wars to stop the self-promoters and credulous POV pushers. What we need in FRINGE areas are editors with the exact opposite proclivities. Contributors who remain unflappable, who follow our standard rules of conduct and dispute resolution with great deference to civility and form (even when it involves a huge dollop of extra patience for the WP:NOTHERE nonsense), and who thereby rob the flame wars (AND the POV pushing) of oxygen, rather than throwing gasoline on the situation. {{pb}} And believe me, having spent time in these areas, I know that a lot of our contributors doing anti-fringe work are just that, and some of the emotional reactions come from occasional burn-out from dealing with all the nonsense. But the area also attracts an outsized number of users who, while in some cases useful for their subject matter expertise and/or general editorial experience on the project, also have this mentality of self-appointed guardianship and a sense that they should be allowed to, at their discretion, abrogate our normal behavioural expectations--because showing short shrift to those rules is the "lesser evil" when compared to what the other guy (whom they perceive, correctly or not, to be a POV pusher) is supposedly doing.{{pb}} That is absolutely wrong, it is what gets editors like :boo: in trouble, and it is the very last sentiment we ought to be validating in front of them in a situation like this, where we are trying desperately to arrest their problematic behaviours while retaining their presence here for their productive capabilities. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I'm not arguing that anti-FRINGE editors should get a jail free card or exception to any policy—what I'm arguing is the converse and perhaps that's where we disagree.
• ::::I see Wikipedia's one and only goal to provide quality content for our readers, and I think all the policies and guidelines exist in service of this goal. People who are actively advocating for our content to be worse are directly making the encyclopedia worse, while policies based on civility, behavior, edit warring and so forth are intended to prevent indirect harms to our content. Some of these indirect harms could certainly be worse than direct harms caused by a proFRINGE editor, depending on the case. However, I would argue "being wrong is disruptive" and this is often underestimated. Obviously, enforcing this would be difficult and problematic as no one can be right 100% of the time and we cannot agree what "right" is in all cases.
• ::::So I do see it as mistaken that editors who cause harm to the encyclopedia by being wrong (even in cases of source misrepresentation, pov-pushing, and the like) often seem to face less consequences for their actions than editors whose errors occur in the course of interpersonal conflict, but perhaps that's unavoidable as in the latter case there is an aggrieved party to complain.
• ::::I don't think any of the above exonerates bloodfox but I also don't think there is likely to be a consensus to ban them at this time. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::No, I agree probably they will not be, and indeed, that's the outcome I have hoped for: they shouldn't be banned under these circumstances. And look, I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree about here, but I will make this important observation. It's not just the indirect consequences that we have to worry about when overzealous editors decide they are not subject to the normal rules of conduct on this project, because their unfettered truth-speaking is too important to the work of stopping the 'pro-fringe' crowd. Because you are quite right that those impacts to editor retention and issues with community time-sinks, and general project atmosphere and moral (the things that I assume you mean by "indirect impacts" to our work of producing reliable content for the reader) are all issues which follow from contributors who feel the normal behavioural rules do not apply to them. {{pb}} But also, they are just directly terrible for the very issues they think they are the panacea for. The multiply and magnify the very variety of issue they believe they are the solution to. They give cover and excuses to editors who would otherwise be easy for our processes to mark. They allow discussions to be more easily diverted from the substantive issues. In worst case scenarios, they feed the conspiracy theory nutbags on social media and promote recruitment for meat farms. And editor who spends 90% of their time trying to combat fringe, but who has the wrong temperament for that work, has a fraction of the overall cost-benefit value to that task than someone who spends 10% of their time combating fringe, but does so by consistently following the rules. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::: I will follow WP:COAL and not enter a Pong-like discussion here, but evidence-free, broad-stroke descriptions of non-fringe-pushing editors such as {{tq|many of our most quarrelsome users}} are the opposite of helpful, are hurtful and offensive on a personal level, and seemingly demonstrate bad faith on your part. Additional bad faith is revealed by implying that non-fringe-pushing editors are problematic as a group: {{tq|What we need in FRINGE areas are editors [...] who follow our standard rules of conduct}}; and {{tq|the area also attracts an outsized number of users who [...] have this mentality of self-appointed guardianship and a sense that they should be allowed to, at their discretion, abrogate our normal behavioural expectations}}. Lastly, having edited in such topics for quite a while now, I can not think of a single, non-fringe-pushing editor who has ever, in your words, {{tq|encourage[d] that FRINGE POV pushing/SPAs be met with lowered standards for conduct from the regular editorial corps}}. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Perhaps you missed where I've repeatedly indicated that I am not talking about the average editor working to check fringe contributions. But if I left any room for ambiguity, let me correct it now: the average person working in this area is competent, polite, and self-controlled. And they provide a vital function to this project under what are sometimes among the most exhausting situations Wikipedia can throw at a volunteer. {{pb}}Frankly, JoJo, I was working the anti-fringe beat long before you joined the project, so I don't need to be told by you that I am somehow showing "bad faith" simply because I happen to point to a longstanding issue in that area, and acknowledge a very real personality type that is a liability to the work. And bluntly speaking, anybody who works at those tasks and hasn't noticed problematic editors of this sort has some serious blinders on, given they are frequent fixtures of ArbCom cases and both AE and ANI reports. {{pb}}Look, let me put it to you this way: on a disturbingly high number of occasions, I have ecnountered editors pushing pro-child sex abuse ideologies. I'm sure if nothing else, we can probably agree at least that this is about the worst and most unacceptable type of fringe that we can imagine someone trying to slip into our conent, right? And if you knew me personally, you'd understand that there's not a type of person on the face of this planet who is more custom-tailored to get my blood boiling. But I never resorted to bending the rules in my efforts to run these shit-heels and their nonsense off the project. I kept cool and followed process. Because the task at hand was more important than my ego, or the satisfaction I would get from loosing my anger on them. {{pb}} Now if I can exercise self-control in those circumstances, then other anti-fringe advocates can sure as hell keep their crap together while talking to Avatar adherents, or cupping advocates, or flat-earthers, or the people here to blow the lid on the lizard people, the little grey men, the Illuminati, Area 51, earthquake machines, and the microchips Bill Gates put in our vaccines. One can and should deal with any kind of purveyor of snake-oil, psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, historical revisionism, and woo without losing their shit, giving the nutters more grist for the mill, and making the containment work harder for the rest of us. {{pb}}And I refuse to take it seriously when you claim that I am showing "bad faith" because I recognize that a certain subset of our fellow contributors in this area are more a liability than a help to the work. I'm sorry, but if you think that isn't so, you are just. plain. wrong. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support . Per User:FOARP, Bloodofox recently touched a content "third rail", which IMO has amplified and somewhat distorted perceptions of their long term behavior. It is true that Bloodofox has periodically (once a year? twice a year?) reached his limit of patience and reacted poorly with acerbic and condescending comments. This has led some to see CBAN as the only solution, but I don't agree the uncivil conduct is extreme and unrelenting enough to warrant expulsion from the project. I do support a formal warning per User: Levivich with ascending blocks if clear policy violations are repeated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe LuckyLouie is right, and this warning will embolden admins to apply the necessary escalating blocks on future. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Basically because this is our chance to tell BOO that this behaviour isn't cool regardless of where it is done. Please AGF in future or you'll be back here and it won't be pretty. And ghosting us like this is not impressive either. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The back and forth on the Braucherei talk page was the first time I remember ever having a conversation with :bloodofox:. For that stuff and all the other stuff I've read about here, it is my sincere hope that it will be enough. I'm not going to get my hopes up too high, though, because something seems to happen to us long-term types. In recent times I've seen several really good long-term editors get indeffed, and some were my friends and mentors. Eerie stuff, IMHO. Maybe :bloodofox: deserves harsher treatment, and maybe they'll get harsher outcomes if they try hard enough. It is my sincere hope that the subject of all this will come around and start treating other volunteer editors with Pillar Four courtesy from this moment on. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• support: something is better than nothing. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Just a note to say this overall thread has been open for two weeks now, with exactly one new participant in the last five days. Personal take aside, if it were about me I wouldn't want an open thread like this hanging over me for longer than it had to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Listed at WP:CR Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=There is no point to having two discussions on the same issues featuring the same editors. The more current one (below) remains open. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Nghtcmdr}}

Now, I must admit I am also a bit guilty for being a bit to harsh condisering this editor has only like 200+ edits and I also am partially responsible for the edit war, but I hugely suspect a WP:NOTHERE editor due to targeting of Chinese sources.

Reason being quite blatantly marking reliable chinese sources as "questionable".(hell, they marked a chinese police website as questionable in regards to a quite uncontroversial claim about chinese police[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616045400-Thehistorianisaac-20250616031700]) Most of the sources I used are typically considered relatively reliable(such as The paper or people's daily).

Now, I seriously hope this is just a case of a new editor not being aware of the 3 revert rule or someone unfamiliar with chinese sources along with WP:RSPMISSING, though the user has engaged in multiple edit wars from what I have seen on the talk page, and has often cited incorrect policies from copy paste responses, such as WP:ONUS([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616085700-Thehistorianisaac-20250616053700][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616085500-Thehistorianisaac-20250616054200]).

They also claim that they need to see "consensus"(despite me pointing to multiple pieces of evidence of wikiproject china along with other users considering the sources(or goverment affiliatted sources in general) can be considered reliable in most cases) for "{{Tq|my opinion is that they should be deemed inadmissible since the sources are all state owned publications}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616085700-Thehistorianisaac-20250616053700]" even though I cited multiple times where the state owned sources have been considered reliable, or state owned sources in this context, though they have shown ignorance to the examples I have given and insist on reverting my edits.

Additionally, they have also done edit warring(which i am also unfortunelately responsible for,) in the previous articles of Chengguan (agency) and SWAT along with several others. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is an entirely frivolous report. There's been no targeting of Chinese sources, there's been targeting of state owned/influenced sources which is an entirely different matter. My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality (i.e. the United States). If administrators want to intervene more directly or know more about the background to this dispute, they can go to these two article sections [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#2018_Clashes_paragraph] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#Sources_and_changes]. Nghtcmdr (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|My position is that they should be deemed inadmissible regardless of the circumstances or nationality}} is simply incompatible with consensus. As described at WP:RSP, several state-owned or funded sources are considered generally reliable (Such as WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE and WP:RSPVOA), while others are considered unreliable (such as WP:WENWEIPO or WP:TELESUR). As such, the reliability of state-owned sources must be determined on a case by case basis. With that said, I think you'd be hard-pressed to successfully argue a source is unreliable solely on the basis that it is state-owned. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Nghtcmdr Still, I question whether you are aware of what is a "questionable source" considering you marked the police website as a "questionable source". In fact, even if I were to use something like idk global times, it could still claim WP:ABOUTSELF(Per WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases) and possibly WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#State-owned sources. I don't know which is lamer, edit-warring or arguing about who should start a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Phil Bridger thanks for setting it up! – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I honestly never even planned a discussion due to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in the first place. I'm gonna be honest, I question whether the person even understood policies, and I made it quite clear that the sources are, from my experience and from the perspective of editors about Chinese related topics(along with several previous discussions, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV)). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Updates:

:User has demonstrated lack of WP:AGF {{tq|That is a claim you simply fabricated.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616103300-Thehistorianisaac-20250616093500](For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating" claims of a discussion which {{tq|The linked discussions do not address the reliability of the sources in question here. }} which the discussion I linked covered ALL of state covered sources) along with borderline WP:BLUDGEON along with more WP:ICANTHEARYOU, claiming {{tq|As a follow up to my initial complaint, I have found there has been almost no source which has been verified as reliable that has actually covered this dispute.}} even though I have repeatedly showed the sources are reliable and have informed them to see WP:RSPNOT[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616203200-Nghtcmdr-20250616024400]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Both editors broke 3RR and were blocked. Any further discussion, if needed, should take place below at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding by Thehistorianisaac. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{resolved| Both users blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on Tactical Police Vehicle. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

(I previously already posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I haven't received any response after my updates, even though the conduct of the user has simply gotten worse)

User:Nghtcmdr has repeatedly shown generally uncivil behavior(WP:NPA, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) along with edit warring and ignoring consensus.

There are already multiple incidents involving edit warring such as here and here. The user has also engaged in rather uncivil behavior, such as:

WP:NPA and WP:GASLIGHT

• {{tq|Your linked noticeboard discussion shows one person who said Chinese state controlled publications could be used as long as "it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda." That is entirely different from the claim which you fabricated, which is that the participants there would have concluded that Chinese state affiliated publications could be used on this article. }}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250617083000-Thehistorianisaac-20250617000300] (For context, they falsely accused me of "fabricating claims" when I explained how consensus on the discussion meant that in this case the sources could be used)
• {{tq|That's not my burden to bear because I'm not the one appealing to consensus. You can't provide the location because you fabricated the positions of the participants who took part in that discussion.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250618001000-Thehistorianisaac-20250617234000] (For context, they are again falsely accusing me of "fabricating claims" after I told them the consensus following the discussion would apply to this instance)

Borderline WP:TAGTEAM

• {{tq|You're not the other user, so stop trying to answer for them.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250618001800-Thehistorianisaac-20250618001500] (For context, I tried to explain policies which they did not like)

Ignorance towards consensus(WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and policies, along with WP:FILIBUSTER

• Complete disregard of warnings related to WP:3RR [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616203200-Robertsky-20250616170000]
• Ignorance to what WP:BURDEN actually means. Also falsely labeled WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE sources as "Unreliable"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616123000-Robertsky-20250616115800] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616110200-Robertsky-20250616104700]
• They have been reminded multiple times that state affiliation does not change whether a source is reliable, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Weirdguyz-20250616122700-Nghtcmdr-20250616113200] and have also failed to understand WP:NEWSORG,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Thehistorianisaac-20250617234800-Nghtcmdr-20250617162800] WP:ABOUTSELF [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250618001000-Amigao-20250617195300], along with what "Reliable sources" are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616045400-Thehistorianisaac-20250616031700] (labeling multiple overall reputable sources(if you want to cross check, I could possibly suggest discussion with WT:CHINA) along with literal goverment sites as "reliable")
• Lack of understanding of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250617100700-Thehistorianisaac-20250617100200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250617103200-Thehistorianisaac-20250617101700] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250617112300-Thehistorianisaac-20250617104700] (claiming the source was disinformation for purely being state affiliated, when none of the sources had anything that can be considered "disinformation" [https://m.voc.com.cn/rmt/article/8363536.html](Hunan Daily; Source is about a SWAT unit in China receiving new vehicles) [https://m.chinanews.com/wap/detail/zw/sh/2019/01-20/8733921.shtml] (China News Service; Source is about SWAT training, and no, it's not some sort of out of the world disinformation) [https://m.thepaper.cn/baijiahao_13544402] (The Paper; Source is discussing the role of Prison SWAT in China)
• Again, a complete lack of understand to WP:AGF and WP:NPA.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250618003400-Thehistorianisaac-20250618001900] even though I have repeatedly warned them of this on multiple occasions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Thehistorianisaac-20250617092400-Nghtcmdr-20250617083000] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Thehistorianisaac-20250618001900-Nghtcmdr-20250618001000]

I originally hoped and assumed these were simply rookie mistakes from an new editor, though the ignorance of rules along with incivility even under multiple warnings makes this really questionable.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The heart of the issue is that this user makes claims but doesn't provide the supporting evidence when asked to do so. At this point, someone needs to step in and mediate the disputes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#Sources_and_changes] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#2018_Clashes_paragraph] directly because this is just getting out of hand. Nghtcmdr (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Nghtcmdr}} Again, I directly linked the discussion, you chose not to read it.

::In fact, you fail to acknowledge the fact that you have repeatedly been ignorant to many policies(Such as WP:RS, WP:RSPNOT) and have also been, in general, incivil. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::The point is no longer about the supporting evidence(Which i provided, but you chose not to read or deliberately misinterpret it), it is that you repeatedly have engaged in incivil behavior, such as edit wars(not just with me, but other editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nghtcmdr#c-Simonm223-20250521112400-May_2025]. In fact, such behavior falls under WP:BRDWRONG) along with WP:PA(falsely accusing others of "Fabricating claims") and lack of WP:AGF [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616103300-Thehistorianisaac-20250616093500]. Even regardless, you have shown lack of understanding of what a WP:RS is, as you have marked many WP:REPUTABLE(and even government sources) sources as "questionable" due to them being government affiliated, something that many other editors have repeatedly told you has nothing to do with reliability.

::In fact, you have deliberately misinterpreted policies for the purpose of WP:GAMING, such as ignorance to what WP:BURDEN and WP:ABOUTSELF means, and have purposefully ignored attempts by other users to try to explain the policies correctly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250618001800-Thehistorianisaac-20250618001500][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Weirdguyz-20250616122700-Nghtcmdr-20250616113200][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Robertsky-20250616115800-Nghtcmdr-20250616110200][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chengguan_(agency)#c-Robertsky-20250616170000-Nghtcmdr-20250616123000]. This is quite blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU. There is, frankly(I don't mean to insult you, but I have no other way to explain this) a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE or just downright lying on multiple occasions here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250617100700-Thehistorianisaac-20250617100200][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250617112300-Thehistorianisaac-20250617104700] where you made claims of the content added being "controversial and sensitive topics", when the content I added was regarding the equipment, training and role of SWAT which is absolutely uncontroversial, as pointed out multiple times both by me and other editors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Jumpytoo-20250618051700-Slatersteven-20250616151700]

::Your own behavior needs to be addressed before the discussion regarding the sources(Which, country to your claim [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nghtcmdr#c-Nghtcmdr-20250616022000-Liz-20250616020300], is not disputed content). In fact, it has been pointed out that the content is not "controversial" or "disputed", and hopefully this is just simply a rookie mistake on your end at best, though I am really questioning whether that is the case considering your conduct. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Seems like even in this discussion he is WP:ICANTHEARYOU Rhinocrat (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Disclosing that I am somewhat involved as I made a comment in the previous topic about this user, and one of my comments has been referenced by Isaac in this topic. At this point I do not think there is any way that Nghtcmdr's conduct is not blatant WP:BLUDGEONing, WP:FILIBUSTERing and WP:IDHT. As detailed by Isaac, in every discussion, Nghtcmdr demands proof of these sources' reliability ad nauseam, but dismisses every single discussion Isaac or any other user presents as being insufficient. They seem to be under the impression that there is a null hypothesis, and that it is that sources are unreliable unless proof of reliability can be given. This is not the case. Reliability is subject to consensus, and the consensus — based on the fact that we have one user continuously refusing to actually listen to anything anyone says, even as multiple people try and explain to them why they are wrong — is that these sources are reliable reliable in this circumstance. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am concerned that the approach Nghtcmdr represents a kind of cybernetic reinforcement of existing neutrality problems regarding China. I've expressed concern in the past that Wikipedia systematically treats the dissident experience as more reliable than the experience of Chinese people who are not dissidents. This is systematic because Wikipedia tends to treat as unreliable those sources that are in-line with the PoV of the Chinese state and because those sources that Wikipedia tends to treat as reliable simply care more about the dissident experience than that of people who are doing fine in China. I don't think this is an individual-editor problem but rather one that extends beyond Wikipedia and into the various materials we use. I also think much of this is a linguistic bias. The two biggest enemies of China are the UK and the USA. It's not surprising, then, that English language media, most of which comes from the USA and the UK communicates those biases and that academics in the anglosphere, and in that media environment, are more interested in dissidents than others. But this is where that self-reinforcing loop comes into play. Because the default on Wikipedia is to treat Chinese sources as less reliable, a new editor coming into these spaces looks at perfectly reasonable uses of Chinese sources (such as a description of their police or fire services) and goes, "well Chinese sources are unreliable so these should go."

::As I view this problem as being systematic I don't really blame Nghtcmdr for that but what is in their control is to recognize they've pushed too hard and that they're missing some of those valuable context-driven queues for source reliability. What they should be doing is recognizing that they are missing subtleties here regarding source reliability and that they've thus made a mistake from which they should step back. I hope that they will recognize this and that this thread can be closed without sanctions. But if they cannot we may need to ask them to stay away from Chinese topics until they have a chance to learn more about handling these situations. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Perfectly said. I agree that a lot of times, Chinese sources are often treated unfairly, thanks to geopolitical issues and systematic bias along with the language barrier. As you have said, I also have hoped(from the start) that Nghtcmdr is doing a rookie mistake, though I do have my concerns regarding the false accusations directed towards me(I'm not that scared of the accusations themselves, rather the lack of civility is what concerns), along with ignoring explanations. I do hope with enough convincing they do understand policies, though I do think sanctions may be brought out should these issues persist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Update:

:User has engaged in even more WP:GASLIGHTING [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Thehistorianisaac-20250619041500-Nghtcmdr-20250619033100] and falsely accused me of "distorting claims", which is a completely baseless allegation, and is pretty ironic considering they completely did WP:ICANTHEARYOU [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Nghtcmdr-20250619033100-Jumpytoo-20250619020500]. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yet more WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:ICANTHEARYOU [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250620051400-China_and_Notable_Incidents_sections].

::He has claimed {{tq|1) includes nearly all the information in your version 2) contains information which is not in your version }}, though seeing the revisions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=prev&oldid=1293482406] it is quite obvious this is not the case, and is the contrary. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Update: User has shown even more ignorance of consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250620065000-Thehistorianisaac-20250620055300] {{tq| or "your changes are wrong because it goes against my opinion of what other people said" are not proper arguments.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250620051400-China_and_Notable_Incidents_sections]{{tq|For the China-related disagreements, my write up of the section should be preferred }}(Even though consensus has shown my one has nothing wrong, and their's is blatant deletion of content from my version) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Even more WP:ICANTHEARYOU [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SWAT#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621001600-Thehistorianisaac-20250620073000] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Update:

::User has now engaged in WP:HOUNDING. On WT:MILHIST, they made baseless accusations of me doing "{{tq|The other editor you are talking to has been adding mainly Chinese language sources from state controlled publications as part of what appears to be part of their larger strategy of conditioning the wider community into accepting those type of sources, so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy. Whether there are deeper political dynamics at play I don't know and am not in a position to speculate, but the idea that there is a larger context at work is something to keep in mind when trying to gauge the seriousness of this problem.}}"

:: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700]

::This is a serious breach of WP:AGF, and shows the user is openly engaging in WP:HOUNDING, and also is repeatedly harassing me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I seriously request immediate admin intervention. At this point, the user has started to harass me on topics outside of the original discussion, and has started to make even more baseless accusations against me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Further update:

:::User has again, attempted to edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force&diff=1296762472&oldid=1296759439], citing a discussion which has yet to be finished yet as "consensus". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Even after I explained the discussion was unfinished [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force&diff=1296764183&oldid=1296763967], the user has still repeatedly attempted to edit war, and is willing to do WP:POINT.

::::Additionally, his claim of {{tq|so it doesn't strike me as a surprise that they would try to fill this article with as much Chinese as possible in furtherance of that strategy.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700] can be interpreted as slightly racist. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Further updates:

:::::User has reported me on WP:AN/3 and has taken my quotes out of context. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#c-Nghtcmdr-20250622040100-User:Thehistorianisaac_reported_by_User:Nghtcmdr_(Result:_)] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: I have protected the article for 3 days in response to the edit war report. This can be undone by the admin closing this discussion without notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's great, but I would suggest that the editor's other misconduct be addressed. The edit war seems to be part of a harassment campaign by them directed towards me. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::More updates:

:::::User has posted a DNR thread about me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#People's_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force] and has continued to use an UNFINISHED discussion as proof of consensus.

:::::@Nghtcmdr Please stop opening threads about me before you have addressed your incivility Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would seriously recommend an admin take literally any action here. Even without considering the merits of either parties arguments, it is clear that these editors cannot work with each other and at the very least a no-fault two-way IBAN is needed. This has been going on for almost a week with exceptionally little in the way of substantive responses to Isaac's concerns. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's now escalated to the point that Nghtcmdr's behavior has gone past WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GASLIGHTING, it has reached a point of borderline harassment and possibly even WP:HOUNDING.

::Me and @RovingPersonalityConstruct were having a rather civil and normal discussion on WT:MILHIST [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700-When_to_add_Chinese-language_translations], when Nghtcmdr decided to go to said discussion and making extremely incivil comments towards me[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700], and proceeded to edit war on said article, and even decided to take my edit summary out of context.

::Immediate actions are needed. This no longer has plausible deniability as "Rookie mistakes" as I have hoped for a week before, and seems more like targeted actions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You engaged @RovingPersonalityConstruct on the discussion board only after they extricated themselves from your edit war with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1296430119] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1296433796] by starting the discussion there even though that was your responsibility as you were the one who sought to include the disputed content. Nghtcmdr (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Nghtcmdr

::::Point is, I still decided to engage in the discussion constructively and provided my opinion, while you decided to make completely false accusations and conspiracy theories about me on said discussion. It doesn't really matter who starts the discussion, as long as it exists and we respect said discussion without violating policies.

::::Additionally, your conduct on the discussion(which you brought up but failed to address properly outside of repeatedly blaming me) is only the tip of the iceberg of all your misconduct here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Thehistorianisaac No, the point is you are treating this encyclopedia like a battlespace where you need to win every disagreement you get into by doing everything you can to ensure your version of the material stays published. If you really respected policy, you would have, without reverting @RovingPersonalityConstruct back, started the discussion after their first revert of your edit. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Nghtcmdr

::::::Again, please address the other concerns regarding your own misconduct.

::::::I'm not the one treating this as a battlespace(Ironically, you have targeted me multiple times on several different edits), nor will I treat this as a battlespace. The point is, I have went to the discussion and explained my edits(It does not matter who starts the discussion, as long as it is used productively), but you decided to attack me personally for topics completely irrelevant to the discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700], and have spread false lies about me, reverted my edit when I explained that the discussion was still ongoing.

::::::You are the one choosing to edit war and harass me here. And, keep in mind, this is just your most recent misconduct, as our previous edit wars and incivility still need to be addressed. Again, I remind you, shifting the blame on me(when I respected the discussion, and stayed civil) is not going to help you. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Thehistorianisaac The point is you "discussed" only after you "won" your edit war with @RovingPersonalityConstruct. Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Nghtcmdr

::::::::Again, I remind you to address your incivility issues. In fact, in regards to the discussion, what you should be addressing is how you decided to personally harass me and engage in what could be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING. The order of when the discussion was started does not matter, that does not make me more or less right, nor is it about WP:WINNING. I chose to gave my opinion on the matter, and I listened to RovingPersonalityConstruct's own opinion respectfully on WT:MILHIST.

::::::::In contrast, you chose to use this as an opportunity to WP:SMEAR me and engage in harassment. This needs to be addressed by you immediately.

::::::::Again, I would suggest immediate admin intervention. At this point, the incivility of Nghtcmdr has been going on for quite a long time by now, and it is quite questionable how long it is taking for any meaningful admin involvement. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::should I ping the Bushranger or Liz? These are some serious accusations... And they aren't getting responded to Rhinocrat (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I already messaged Liz before, but no response yet. But yeah, feel free to do so. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Further updates:

::::::::Ironically, @Nghtcmdr is falsely accusing another editor without evidence of "WP:OR" and "Bending policy" on a TALK PAGE.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transnational_repression#c-Nghtcmdr-20250623193200-Monk_of_Monk_Hall-20250528034900]

::::::::Again, I would highly advise admins take action here, as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from said user has been going on for multiple weeks by now. It's honestly ridiculous how long this is taking. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Further updates:

:::::::::Said user has now went on a vandalism spree of removing non-english sources and replacing them with english sources that do not cover said info, or just completely deleting properly sourced info if they are in other languages.

:::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_special_forces_units&oldid=1296967662][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tactical_Police_Vehicle&oldid=1297050727][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Super_Duty&diff=1296993072&oldid=1293526905]

:::::::::User has also added unverified info. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=43rd_Air_Mobility_Operations_Group&diff=1296858051&oldid=1284679602] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I have filed a report against @Thehistorianisaac for harassment (hounding) Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Nghtcmdr Stop falsely accusing me of "hounding". You chose to incorrectly remove info, I restored said info. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#LTA_again_adding_%22brutally_beaten%22 this] for context. On 3 June, 2600:4040:5E53:5F00:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for two weeks by Rsjaffe, but after the block expired they immediately returned to make the same edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolai_Yezhov&diff=prev&oldid=1296149075][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filipp_Goloshchyokin&diff=prev&oldid=1296149686] Can we get a longer block this time? Thank you. Mellk (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Since rangeblocks haven't helped it may be better to blacklist that particular phrase. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} one month. – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Iggy pop goes the weasel}} Might be worth posting at WP:EFR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Done! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Vandal_repeatedly_adding_%22brutally_beaten%22_to_articles] Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Mellk (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Update: Someone came along and said it would be discussed on the mailing list, whatever that is. 😊 Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genrikh_Yagoda&diff=prev&oldid=1296974451 another] edit. Not sure if this is the same person since this is from a different location and there are no other similar edits from this range. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::My guess is that it's a different vandal. Edits in general are quite different though all in this /64 are vandalism. This one frequents AN/I so probably just picked up on the pattern. The IPs are only 40 miles apart, so there is a very slight possibility it is the same person. Not very active, so don't think action is necessary.n. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Makes sense. I saw the previous edits to ANI and thought the same. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This was filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but it isn't an article content dispute, and it appears to be a chronic intractable behavioral issue. User:Ohconfucius apparently has a script which is changing the English variety templates to {{tl|EngvarB}} without consensus. A banner containing instructions for the template {{tl|EngvarB}} state that: {{tq|An article tagged with one of the more-specific English-dialect templates should not be changed to EngvarB unless a talk-page discussion concludes with consensus to do so.}}.

Editors were complaining to User:Ohconfucius at least since 2 June 2025 and have been ignored, both with templates and with talk page text. Two examples of the inappropriate edits were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_George_%28Uganda%29&diff=1293644654&oldid=1270416679] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Jacomb-Hood&diff=1294636167&oldid=1294540514].

It now appears that administrator Martin has blocked OhConfucius from mainspace. I think that this was a necessary block but should be discussed here.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please also note that this editor is the maintainer of a script that applies ENGVAR changes, and has been unresponsive to concerns that the script makes inappropriate changes. I do not have a way of knowing if this script is being used by other editors to make these inappropriate changes, possibly without those editors' knowledge that the script does so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::User:Ohconfucius wrote, on their talk page, after the block: {{tq|Please advise how I'm supposed to act on this information, seeing that I've been pre-emptively blocked in a rather high-handed fashion}} . I don't think that the block was pre-emptive so much as preventive, and I don't think that it was high-handed, after other editors have been trying to discuss the script-based template changes for more than two weeks without any response other than a continuation of the improper edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Please see the User talk page link above. It has been over seven months, not just two weeks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have raised concerns with Ohconfucius regarding their script making errors, on 11 June and 18 June; their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhconfucius&diff=1295132212&oldid=1295126532 response] was essentially "I cannot be bothered to correct the script". I suggest a topic ban. GiantSnowman 17:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I've been on line for 6 hours without substantial editing, just doing some much-needed tidying up work, so I fail to see how one can say that the block was not pre-emptive or preventative. Anyway, I'll respond more fully later.  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 18:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::...we are, in fact, very much saying the block was preventative, and the evidence provided so far makes it very clear that yes, it's preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree it was a good block. GiantSnowman 19:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Unfortunately moving this here was bound to result in escalation. There is a real issue that needs resolving, and I understand how frustrating it is for all concerned. The issue is a little more sensitive than it appears, and a little more complex than it appears. Achieving the optimal outcome might yet be possible but I think it would have been better left at the DR page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC).

::This is a real issue that needs resolving. Bringing it here was escalation because repeated requests with varying degrees of courtesy had been ignored. After Ohconfucius had repeatedly ignored concerns that his script was removing the national language templates, why should I or other editors have expected that he would respond to an invitation to come to DRN? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm no expert about all this, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Template:EngvarB strongly suggests that there's an ongoing issue with our language templates and that a solution could be found. It would need some hammering out, sure, but it also wouldn't necessitate a ban. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for pointing out that open TFD. I think that deprecating the {{tl|EngvarB}} template is a good idea, but I don't think that would avoid the need for sanctions against an editor who both continues to advocate for the template and has shown disregard for consensus. It appears that Ohconfucius doesn't know what their own script does. They say that the template is purely a maintenance template that indicates that an article has been processed by the script. They don't say that the script removes {{tl|Use Ugandan English}} and {{tl|Use British English}}; but it does remove the Use National English templates. That TFD discussion shows that the script's maintainer is not part of the solution and is therefore part of the problem. It also shows that we cannot rely on the script's maintainer to describe what the script actually does. Maybe the script is a rogue script. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This can be resolved by fixing the script All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC).

::::Yes. It should not have taken weeks or months for editors to ask that the script be fixed. Some of us no longer trust Ohconfucius to maintain scripts, after he continued to use scripts with reported bugs for an extended period of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The EngvarB script should only be used on English variants it supports. For example, New Zealand English#American English influences describes aspects of that variety which need custom support. Ohconfucius [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohconfucius#c-Ohconfucius-20250611222800-GiantSnowman-20250611175600 previously stated] he would not do this, however, while of course there is no obligation for Ohconfucius to add support for all English variants, the script should not be used on English variants it does not support. cagliost (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:That TfD was recently closed as "deprecate".—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

First off, just a simple "him" will do when referring to me. My work on WP has occasionally proven frustrating, especially when there seems [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_27&diff=prev&oldid=1293575428 not to be any coherent approach] to achieving end goal, or maybe a mutual misunderstanding of what that goal should be. I don't think the uniformity of spelling itself is a problematic issue, because our MOS permits articles to be in one code or another (but not a mix), it's a question of whether to overwrite a language template, to update it, or leave it alone, which has troubled me for a while. I'm not saying that what I sought to do in the past over dates is vindicated – there were indeed some problems with my approach – but there became realisation that work to unify date formats within articles is so fastidious and had to be done by automated or semi-automated means. The dates script has been stable for years now. And although the spelling issue is very similar, there are unresolved issues. However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2025_May_27&diff=1295223987&oldid=1295100568 there are signs] that we may be getting there.

As would seem obvious from my most recent edits, articles are out categories where W:TIES would seem to imply a British Commonwealth spelling while where {{tl|Use British English}} would clearly be inappropriate. Many articles from those categories bearing the template were skipped; or when they were edited, templates were merely updated manually (and not overwritten), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Virgin_Islands&diff=prev&oldid=1296206893 such as this one] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosamund_Pike&diff=prev&oldid=1296120121 this one], and some were regrettably missed, as has been pointed out.

As a solution out of this conflict, I undertake not to remove or replace any language tags in articles. I will update the script for whatever coherent solution as and when it is reached. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 10:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for that undertaking. Would you be prepared to go further and to voluntarily subject yourself to proposal 1 currently being discussed below? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think it is far too pervasive. It'll be like an itch that I can't scratch – most editors will understand how painful that is. Likely to be the case if I come across misspelt word, for example, any one of the articles I had a significant input into or which pops up on my watchlist, or whatever I happen to come across when looking up stuff. As its worded, it also effectively stops me from maintaining the script effectively (including testing). A reminder that the issue is my removal or replacement of language tags, and that my script isn't well maintained.  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 11:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would have a problem with you correcting the occasional spelling mistake, on a manual basis. What they are bothered by are your bot-like script-assisted mass editing. Would you be able to lay off the scripts and other assisted tools in this regard? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Put that way, I could live with it. Hows about an expiry date, though?  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 11:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:User:Ohconfucius - I thank you for your late reply, and have a question. Why did you ignore repeated statements of concern about your script until you were blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, this is a good question which I think should be answered ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Ohconfucius}} you have been online since this question was asked - an answer would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I guess when you work on something for a long time – in this case developing and maintaining scripts, you get wound up in it watching the mechanics and how the code works, all the while looking not just for the changes it makes, mindful of the false positives and false negatives and constantly thinking about modifications to the code to make it better. It can be mesmerising and feeds my nerd side. It's a bit like watching the second hand of a clock go around, and so it's easy to lose sight of the world around us. That’s why this process has been a good experience for me, learning not just about writing code/regexes, also the limitations of manually building worklist using just categories, as well understanding those other opinions and self-reflecting. So, my bad...  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 08:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you going to fix the script so that it conforms with the template documentation? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::What needs to change with the script, in your opinion? Is it an issue for anyone using the script, or was it just the way that Ohconfucius was using it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The script appears to allow [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basil_Rajapaksa&diff=1293263150&oldid=1292230025 replacement of a valid Use X English template with EngvarB], which is contrary to the template's documentation and the script's documentation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaat_al_Muslimeen_coup_attempt&diff=1293195078&oldid=1289394662 Here's another example]. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Elson&diff=prev&oldid=1240244749 here's one from August 2024]; the script owner never responded to the report. The script's owner still has not responded in those threads, so I do not have a way of knowing whether that change was the fault of the script or of the editor. The EngvarB script is also not linked in the default edit summary for these edits, but it appears that the EngvarB script is being used. That is confusing at the least, misleading at worst. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

GiantSnowman suggests a topic ban. I have looked over much of the history, and have two in mind that will largely but not entirely overlap. User:Ohconfucius is an editor whose automated and semi-automated edits have been contentious for at least sixteen years. I think that both are in order, but either of them will address the current disruptive edits, and so either of them, in my opinion, should be sufficient to unblock from article space in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I propose that Ohconfucius be topic-banned from all edits involving English variants, including but not limited to adding, removing, or removing templates, editing the templates, or changes in spelling.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has been given many good-faith chances to change their behavior and change their script. They have not done so and only rarely engage with the constructive feedback provided to them. I request that their EngvarB script be disabled so that others can't use it to make edits that go against MOS:RETAIN and against the documentation at {{tl|EngvarB}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support for now, given the disruption/errors and their refusal to sop or listen. GiantSnowman 07:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support for a limited duration. OhConfucius describes this as being {{tq|like an itch they cannot scratch}} but, unfortunately, their need to scratch this itch seems to have become disruptive. Being asked to step back from this for a little while and get some distance with the force of the community behind them should help OhC to get some context on the urgency of the issue and some distance. However I don't think this should be indefinite. It's clear they also have done some good work in this area and maybe what's really needed is just a breather. As such I think a limited duration topic ban in the realm of 3 months might be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support refusal to stop carrying out edits that many people have objected too shows a disregard for consensus and that a topic ban is necessary to prevent further disruption. 206.83.102.217 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Banned from manually correcting/harmonising spelling? Why?Tony (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with Tony. A ban from correcting spelling seems like overkill, and it's not really addressing the problem. A better solution would be a ban from removing or replacing language tags, and an undertaking not to use the EngvarB script on English variants it does not support (most of them, apparently). cagliost (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I propose that Ohconfucius be topic-banned from all edits using scripts either user-written scripts or Automated Wiki Browser (AWB).

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Strong recommendation to modify this proposal, as scripts are ubiquitous in editing Wikipedia (e.g., Twinkle). Modify to say all edits using scripts on subpages of Ohconfucius. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Tweaked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thank you. Looks good. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ohconfucius's scripts are useful - I use their MOS:NUM one daily - and I see no recent disruption/issues with other scripts, so think the topic ban should be limited to language variants for now. GiantSnowman 07:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose—per Giant Snowman. Tony (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :So Snowman's full real name is Giovanni Snowman? EEng 00:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Giovanni T. Snowman III, to you... GiantSnowman 08:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Edwin Engelbarth, Esquire, to you... EEng 02:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, Ohconfucious does a legitimate lot of good work in the script space, and it would be a net negative to ban them from this space. Sohom (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|KhndzorUtogh}}{{pb}}

I'm reporting User:KhndzorUtogh for misusing CSD G5 to tag my article Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922) for speedy deletion, claiming it violated general sanctions on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics.

1. The article **does not relate to the Armenian Genocide**, nor to the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute.

2. It covers **a military campaign in Central Asia (1922)** by Enver Pasha during the Basmachi movement.

3. I am **not banned or blocked**, and the article has **no connection to any topic currently under GS enforcement**.

4. After tagging it with G5, the user **deleted the article without waiting for AfD consensus**, and has continued to interfere with the content’s existence.

This appears to be either a **misunderstanding of policy** or **deliberate abuse** to suppress valid content. I've contested the deletion and posted on the talk page, but I would appreciate admin input before this escalates further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selim beg (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I thought about reporting Selim beg but it looks like they’ve made a report already so I’ll just comment here instead of making one. I warned and reverted user Selim beg recent edits almost all of them were about Enver pasha, the main perpetrator of the Armenian genocide, thus violating WP:GS/AA. My thinking is that it’s at the least a broadly construed WP:GS/AA violation since all of the edits I reverted involve Enver pasha battles when he’s the leader or the movement leader himself, and deletion requests like this are an explicit violation if anything [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hitler%27s_reference_to_the_Armenian_genocide&oldid=1296271643] (though it was blanked later by them). The user, despite my thorough additional explanation on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASelim_beg&diff=1296306171&oldid=1296302675], has reverted several edits and restored their version / articles without gaining extended confirmed, you can see it in their contributions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Selim_beg]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Enver Pasha was indeed the main pepetetrator of the Armenian genocide, but that doesn't make everything regarding Enver Pasha WP:GS/AA related, even under 'broadly construed'. Enver Pasha's campaign in Bukhara (1922), for instance, doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with the AA topic area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I see. What about article/template of Basmachi Movement? I had nominated the template for speedy deletion, but I don’t have a problem withdrawing it. This revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bergmann_Offensive&diff=prev&oldid=1296369737 here] though I believe it is a violation. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You could stretch that one, since there were Armenian volunteers, but overall it's a World War I battle between the Ottoman Empire and Russia and the edit linked doesn't appear to affect the Armenian-related content. I'd WP:AGF on that one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I thought it was a violation but wasn’t 100% sure so I didn’t revert it. I see that it can be a stretch and agree with assuming GF. FYI, the user now restored all their article versions and made a GS/AA violation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878)&diff=1296436902&oldid=1296435373 here]. I can’t assume GF on this one as it’s a blatant violation, especially after all the discussion here and on their talk. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::* The GS/AA sanctions are for modern political disputes, mostly post-1900, especially:

::::::** Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict

::::::** Nagorno-Karabakh

::::::** Genocide debates

::::::** Soviet/post-Soviet territorial issues etc.

::::::The 1877–78 war (aka the 93 war) is a 19th-century Ottoman–Russian conflict, and while Armenians participated, it's a historical military matter — not directly under GS/AA unless you make it political which i didn't and especially put an academic source supporting my claim. Selim beg (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I’m a bit concerned about the level of incompetency here. Selim beg is actively reverting / editing in Enver Pasha main article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296493583], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296494791] while at the same time arguing it not being in the WP:GS/AA scope? It’s like editing Hitler’s article while simultaneously arguing it’s unrelated to the Holocaust.

:::::::Additionally, they’ve restored their previous violation in a war article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)&diff=prev&oldid=1296494968], where they added Armenian volunteers as belligerents and where Armenia is mentioned more than 30 times. And yet here they defend this too? I won’t revert you again, please revert yourself if you understand that these are general sanction violations, you may be sanctioned if you don’t self revert. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That is not how WP:GS/AA works. The mere presence of the word "Armenia" or the fact that an article mentions Armenian individuals does not automatically place it under General Sanctions. GS/AA applies specifically to modern political disputes — namely, the Armenian Genocide, the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh, and related nationalism-based content disputes.

::::::::My edits to the Enver Pasha article are limited to his ethnicity and military career in the Balkans, not to any content related to the Armenian Genocide or the Azerbaijan–Armenia dispute. Therefore, GS/AA does not apply to those changes.

::::::::Likewise, my addition of Armenian volunteers in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 pertains to a 19th-century imperial war, and is:

::::::::* Historically accurate

::::::::* Widely documented by reliable sources

::::::::* Not presented with any modern political or nationalist framing

::::::::Comparing these edits to “editing Hitler while denying the Holocaust” is a gross mischaracterization and not remotely analogous. I have not edited anything relating to 1915, genocide claims, or nationalist narratives.

::::::::Unless you can show how these specific edits fall within the actual scope of GS/AA as defined by ArbCom, I see no reason to self-revert. Selim beg (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::If you insist, that’s fine, I won’t be the judge of that. The diffs are there for admins to look at, but I still advise you to reconsider and self revert for your own benefit. Also this sounds like an AI generated text and if it is, at least quote me accurately; I didn’t say anything about you denying the holocaust. The supposed validity of your edits has nothing to do with extended confirmed sanctions either. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|Selim beg}}, you are wrong in your assessement of GS/AA. It is not limited to {{tqq|modern political disputes}}. GS/AA applies to {{tqq|Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed}}. Not there is nothing about "modern", and there is "broadly construed". The 1877-78 war, in which (as you note) Armenians participated, is, therefore, a "conflict involving Armenia" and thus explicitly covered by GS/AA. Now, reasonably, not everything about the war falls under GS/AA, but anything involving Armenians (or Azeris, if they were present) about the war is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think the belief that the G5-tagged articles were covered by GS/AA is a reasonable one, so I don't think any admin action against KU is warranted here. GS/AA is not limited to modern conflicts, so SB is wrong about that part and should consider some self-reversion. The gross misquoting of KU ("denying the Holocaust") is a serious issue, and it should stricken ASAP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Firefangledfeathers @The Bushranger It doesn’t look like Selim beg is going to self revert because they have been active since the comments here, and yet they made more edits in Enver pasha main article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296774438], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296774488], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296774567]. I personally would’ve liked them to self revert, but it increasingly appears they’re not going to do so. I reverted them in both articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878)&diff=prev&oldid=1296777657], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1296777714], and left another message on their talk [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Selim_beg&diff=prev&oldid=1296778094]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Selim beg}}, would you please disclose the extent to which you have used a large language model (LLM), such as an AI chatbot or other tool, to author your article edits such as Special:Diff/1296570440 and your comments such as the first one in this discussion? — Newslinger talk 14:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::i write the paraghraps myself in turkish and ask ai to translate it for me Selim beg (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Selim beg}}, what are you using to translate your Turkish text? There is a distinction between using machine translation services such as Google Translate, which may use LLMs in their technical implementation but still aim to create a faithful translation of your text in the target language, and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, which generate all kinds of outputs including ones that are not translations of your text. The use of machine translation services is acceptable in some cases when not done disruptively, but the use of AI chatbots is often problematic for the reasons listed at WP:LLM. — Newslinger talk 16:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|Selim beg}}, can you please respond to the above? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Jensenjan}}

Jensenjan has gamed their way to 500 edits in a bit over a month and then on their 503rd edit inserted poorly sourced material into the article at Zionism. Can an admin please yank their XC. TarnishedPath^talk 10:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Poorly sourced from a wiki perspective perhaps, but "a truly non-biased, factual opening paragraph without citations from angry Arabs" according to one of the many people involved in targeting that article in the media and social media. Like ban evasion/sockpuppetry, new accounts 'gaming' the extendedconfirmed privilege then making a significant proportion of revisions in the topic area is not very unusual. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::When I found the page that has that quote, my internet security told me not to open it. I took the guidance. TarnishedPath^talk 11:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously your internet security is antisemitic. Gaming is not the major issue for me. The most troubling thing is not that there is gaming, or influence operations that cause susceptible people to come here, it's that when they get here, they very often credulously implement the task assigned externally, rather than engage with Wikipedia processes by reading previous discussions, the sources cited etc. I assume this is because our articles are written by (checks notes) "random internet assholes", or because "Wikipedia let NeoNazis vandalise theiir site", or because "the antisemites...can brigade and pervert a structure like Wikipedia". I can see gaming. But I can't see susceptibility to misinformation/external influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The gaming is a symptom of a desire to act in a certain manner. In this circumstance to act in a manner pushed by other parties. So while you might not see it as the major issue, in and of itself, it is indicative of a issues. TarnishedPath^talk 14:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see it as one of many issues that are not really being addressed. 2161 accounts have been granted the extendedconfirmed privilege so far this year. How many of them gamed EC? Nobody knows. What we do know is that accounts that acquire EC quickly are significantly more likely to be blocked than accounts that take their time. So, recognizing gaming and yanking the grant may be a good preventative measure. A confounding factor is the notion of 'staleness'. Gaming might not be noticed until long after the grant was issued and the account has gone on to make many, many edits in the topic area. Another confounding factor is the 'what is gaming?' question. Wikipedia provides several tools that help new editors make many edits in a short time, through the Growth Team features and other tools. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I, do not understand your point. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::* Gaming EC to edit in the PIA topic area happens. There should be better countermeasures and the EC grant should be removed if there is agreement that gaming has occurred.

:::::::* We don't monitor EC grant acquisition to spot gaming.

:::::::* We should do a better job at spotting gaming. It may save time in the longer run because rapid acquisition of the EC grant is positively correlated with blocks.

:::::::* EC gaming is usually found by luck or too late. Here is an example of what looks like gaming EC to edit in the PIA topic area. I didn't notice this until almost 2 years after the gaming occurred, well into 'stale' territory. And that account may be sanctioned soon.

:::::::* It is not always clear whether something is or is not 'gaming'. Wikipedia provides tools to help people game privileges by making constructive edits. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::*:Entirely agree that we should do a better job at spotting it. In this circumstance if the editor had gotten their WP:XC and then gone onto edit some of the lower profile articles in the topic area for a month or two, by the time they came to disruptively edit Zionism it would have been harder to notice and even if noticed going into the territory of being stale. TarnishedPath^talk 04:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm confused as to why Britannica would be flagged by security software. It's, a well known website. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I was referring to the only site where a search on the phrase "a truly non-biased, factual opening paragraph without citations from angry Arabs" got a hit. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::okay, I took a look at it, and yeah, a site having a self-signed/expired/invalid ssl cert, is a massive red flag. It doesn't even load on my phone when I click though it, root domain loads just fie tho, but its overran with ads, like every time you click a link, you get a full screen ad when it loads, as well as those "click allow notifications" popups that are used as a vector for phising scams. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Meta issues aside, I have removed EC from this particular user. They're welcome to reapply if needed and gaming can be addressed then. Star Mississippi 21:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I gotta say I don't get the claim of “gaming” here. Someone wants to edit a topic that requires XC. We tell them they can’t do that until they have 500 edits. They go and make 500 edits in a different topic, now they are XC and they edit they article they want - and we accuse them of “gaming” because they went and did exactly what we asked them to, and we want to take away their XC? WTF? EscEscEsc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:They are expected to make 500 constructive edits. Look at their edit history - for instance on the 19th, instead of making 2-3 large edits to Eve, they made 57 tiny edits, only seven of which were over 100 characters, and a number of which were "just adding a space" or "just adding a period" before clicking save. This isn't an editor 'learning the ropes' through editing and understanding how Wikipedia works, which is the intent of XC/ECR; this is an editor "speed-running" gaining WP:XC (note, it's XC, not EC, even though extended confirmed restricted is ECR - this inconsistency should probably be discussed somewhere...), which is blatantly WP:PGAMING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:+1 to The Bushranger. The point of making 500 edits is to learn the ropes of Wikipedia before diving into difficult topics, and that takes time. No one learns how to navigate Wikipedia's intricacies in a couple of days. (Hell's bells, no one really can learn them in a month, however gung ho they may be.) This is not a race, and a disproportionate number of editors who Absolutely Have To Edit a contentious topic article Right! Now! are the ones with partisan axes to grind. Ravenswing 09:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::So, 3 months is insufficient? Why not change the policy instead of sending people to ANI for following the policy. Maybe PIA takes 5,000 esits and a year if that is the goal. 12.75.114.25 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::30 days (not three months) is entirely sufficient, if an editor has 500 constructive edits during that time. The system is fine. People gaming it is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Its only 30 days? I didn't realize that. That seems great to stop accidental entries, but not close to being able to stop anyone who wants to write about politics instead of focusing on improving an encyclopedia. 12.75.114.25 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, and it is an example of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS&redirect=no WP:ASPERSIONS] absent evidence. LordDiscord (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::While true, it is - as I pointed out - evidenced by their contribution history. Making 57 tiny edits to a single article in a single day, many of which are 'add/remove a space' or 'add a single punctuation mark', is clearly gaming the system. AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I beg to differ. As a non-native English speaker, I sometimes have to work hard at a sentence or a paragraph until it looks like good English. I would like to compliment myself on what looks like solid, idiomatic English, which is not always the case when I begin to work on an entry or being able to incorporate additional information as I work my way through the text. Additionally, I do not yet consider myself an experienced editor, but with the kind help that I expect to receive from you and others, I hope to advance at a good speed. I thank you for the opportunity to explain myself here and for the time and effort you took in addressing my hard work. Jensenjan (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Dear Bushranger, would you be kind enough to tell me where I supposedly made 57 tiny edits to a single article in a single day? I will look it up and explain myself. I am most certain that something like that never happened, but I'll check and promise to revert to you with a serious answer to that claim. Again, thank you for your kind interest. Jensenjan (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::They are referring to the Eve page. LordDiscord (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::LordDiscord, thank you very much for making the effort to point out to me where that unjust accusation came from.

:::::I am looking at my edits of 19.06.2025 which were indeed multiple and I am flabbergasted that anyone could call these edits "gaming". Yes, there were also many small edits to get the language or the order in place, but I rearranged several paragraphs in the entry to make it more logical; I made sense of the two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, which were not clear before; I explained the interpretations of the Lilith story, the equal male-female versus female inferior problem; correctly cited biblical verses and Hebrew names of Cain and Abel; put certain items into their correct chronological context and added references to various sources, all of which are valid and relevant. If there is such a thing, I respectfully ask to make a big note on my WP resume saying that I'm a good and serious person trying to do a good job. I wish I can do as good a job on other entries as well. Jensenjan (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That is not clearly the case. Gaming says they must be unconstructive or trivial. What percentage of the edits were not constructive or trivial? Adding a needed comma or space is absolutely constructive and important to the project. The examples given in the article are dummy edits and unconstructive edits to a sandbox, not edits that improved actual pages.

:::I haven’t looked through all the cases, but the edits were made continually over a period of three hours and the few I looked at seemed useful. Spending three hours to improve the encyclopedia should be praised, regardless of whether it got them 11% closer to ECR. Again, I have not looked at all of them though. LordDiscord (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|LordDiscord}}, what distinguishes evidence of gaming from an aspersion? Is this evidence of gaming - many small edits over an extended period with some revisions to ECR pages immediately after XC was granted? Someone described this as gaming and the party responded with a statement inconsistent with the evidence, which is a bit odd, but whatever. If that evidence was presented to support a claim of gaming, would you regard it as a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS? My point is that evidence of gaming is tricky, often ambiguous, because it is trying to be evidence of intent, and we can't see intent. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Absent evidence, absolutely this would be WP:ASPERSIONS. The small edits could be overwhelmingly changes that legitimately improved Wikipedia (typos, grammar, etc.) and the behavior after seems similar to the behavior before (mostly small edits). Another important thing to look for is if the changes to ECR pages mostly like these other changes and if they were discussed beforehand. Gaming would be making irrelevant changes in a sandbox or making changes back and forth or something else that doesn’t improve the encyclopedia, and then making controversial changes to an extended confirmed article (ones that would not have been made if they asked for it in a talk page). Are there any edits from this user on an XC page that were controversial? If not, what would even be the purpose of gaming? Additionally, if not, I would recommend talking to the account who accused this account of gaming, and showing them WP:ASPERSIONS. Wikipedia should be friendly and open to new users, and personal attacks are greatly detrimental to this. Older editors need to be talked to when they step out of line too. LordDiscord (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also, would be curious which statement this party made that was “inconsistent with the evidence”? Please post on the user’s talk page and inform them they are being discussed here, so they may defend themselves. (“When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.”) LordDiscord (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi LordDiscord,

::::The person who made the accusation is TarnishedPath.

::::I may have overstepped my capabilities to edit what apparently is a very contested entry, but it seems to me that the entry "Zionism" indeed is skewed and does not mirror a truthful description of the subject. Somehow, several articles have popped up in some of my other feeds on this subject's treatment in WP, so apparently it has caught the attention of other people as well. I respectfully suggest that senior editors seriously look at this entry to make it more balanced. Further, I found it strange how fast and furiously TarnishedPath jumped at me when I added a small addition with a valid reference. Perhaps it is worth the while for senior WP editors to look into this esteemed editor's history concerning this entry and other ones concerning similar subjects. Of course, all for the benefit of improving WP, which I am sure that you and I work hard to do. I thank you for that. Jensenjan (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh, I thought Sean.hoyland was bringing up a graph of a third-party. If this is about you, I am curious what they think you said in response to gaming accusations that was inconsistent with the evidence. I think you have responded to the accusations completely consistently with the evidence. LordDiscord (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Dear LordDiscord,

::::::Yes, after TarnishedPath objected to - and apparently removed - my addition, a few other people attacked me. I think we have exhausted this issue for now and I thank you again for supporting my innocence in this case. Hopefully, we can now all go back to what we are here for, to improve on WP and bring balanced knowledge to the world. Jensenjan (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::LordDiscord, there is no need to inform anyone because the plot is anonymized, it is presented as an ambiguous edge case (there are many), and it is not for Jensenjan. And thank you for your response. It illustrates many of the challenges with the notion of 'gaming'. There's a mismatch between what Wikipedia wants from editors in contentious topic areas (someone recently used the term 'true WP:CLUE' to describe this) and the crude proxy we use to try to measure it, 500 edits+30 days. In practice, there's often no relationship between these 2 things. If XC is meant to be some kind of proxy for experience, knowing the rules, rationality, ability to collaborate, things like that, which seems to be the intention, are small edits that legitimately improve Wikipedia (typos, grammar, etc.) useful indicators? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the ability to collaborate on talk pages to find consensus is a better indicator. I disagree with limiting it to obvious things like "making irrelevant changes in a sandbox" because people keen to tunnel through the barrier to get into contentious topic areas (or get back in after being banned) are usually smarter than that. I do agree though that when 'the behavior after seems similar to the behavior before' a claim of 'gaming' should be much less persuasive. As for 'Are there any edits from this user on an XC page that were controversial?', my view is once you are asking a question like that about complicated properties of revisions you are not talking about 'gaming' anymore. Almost any edit can be controversial to someone in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Right, generally anonymized — but only if it isn’t someone participating here who would recognize through keen observation the pattern of edits. Otherwise it would have a chilling, accusatory effect, as Jensenjan felt when they thought it was them. You could imagine a scenario where someone defended someone else on gaming accusations and an editor who disagreed posted a graph like that along with such veiled accusations (such as “responded with a statement inconsistent with the evidence”) — this would be generally be seen as threatening (seen as quietly hinting that if they continue defending the other user, they will get accused of the same thing) and would likely send the anonymized user into a state of fear, stifling open discussion. I am sure you wouldn’t do such a thing, of course, but can you just confirm it is not anyone else participating in this topic to put my old mind to rest?

:::::::Sandbox and dummy edits are the only examples given for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PGAME&redirect=no WP:PGAME]. I don’t see how useful edits would be unconstructive or trivial.

:::::::Regarding, “Almost any edit can be controversial to someone in a contentious topic area”, you didn’t say what this anonymized user’s edits on XC pages were. For all I know, perhaps the only edits the anonymized user unilaterally did on XC pages could be changing “seperate” to “separate” or “occured” to “occurred”. These are obviously just examples I fabricated, and are almost certainly not what the anonymized user actually did — but if this were the case, would you consider these “controversial”? LordDiscord (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{re|Jensenjan}} Could you please explain the decision process that led you to make the edit Special:Diff/1296492089 to the article Zionism, and your understanding of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to that edit? — Newslinger talk 21:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I was wondering that exact thing, given Sean's comments above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I apparently walked into something complicated that I did not fully understand. My edit was to add what I saw as a more balanced definition of Zionism (cited from Britannica) on top of the one that was already there. I did not change any text or delete anything. I will be more careful in the future and continue my path of learning. I did see the immediate backlash, but I have been busy with other things, so I only answer today. Sorry for that. Now I can't find the reactions from last week. Perhaps you could be helpful and direct me to that.
• :Two things concern me: I saw a notice that my editor status was changed. I respectfully ask to have it reinstalled. Second, an editor attacked me and claimed that I had "gamed" my way to 500 edits. I vehemently protest that unfair and untrue accusation. I have worked hard on editing many entries on many different subjects and, I think, improved on the content, sources and language of all of them.
• :Lastly, if I need to take any further action, please help me out in that as well. Jensenjan (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Having gone through more of your edits (which were clearly very time-consuming and improved the project – not unconstructive) and given your promise to be more careful in the future, I support this. LordDiscord (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{pb}}{{u|Jensenjan}}, one of the purposes of the extended confirmed restriction is to ensure that you obtain sufficient experience while editing less controversial topic areas so that once you are eligible to edit in a highly contentious topic area, you would have an adequate understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to avoid making elementary mistakes such as your edit Special:Diff/1296492089. As you did not understand how the edit Special:Diff/1296492089 is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it appears that Star Mississippi made the correct call by revoking your extended confirmed permission.{{pb}}For your information, the style guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (MOS:LEAD) explains how Wikipedia articles are supposed to begin, and why no policy-compliant Wikipedia article starts with a copied-and-pasted excerpt from another encyclopedia before introducing the name of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 21:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::By the way, you can reapply here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PERM/EC&redirect=no WP:PERM/EC]
• ::I would suggest noting in your request that it was removed by Star Mississippi after you made a mistake editing an EC page (and link to this discussion), and that Star Mississippi said that you were welcome to reapply. Additionally, I suggest mentioning that since then you have promised to be more careful. LordDiscord (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Dear LordDiscord,
• :::Thank you for this suggestion.
• :::If I understand correctly, I was demoted from EC to XC and now I can reapply to get my status back?
• :::When I go to the link above (WP:PERM/EC) I don't see where I can reapply and who I should direct my request to.
• :::Would you be kind enough to help me with this?
• :::Thank you. Jensenjan (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::You haven't been demoted, EC and XC mean the same thing, 30 days and 500 edits. However your EC/XC status has been removed, you are now AC (4d and 10 edits). Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 07:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thank you for making that point clear.
• :::::Please direct me to where I apply to get my status as EC/XC back, as the link LordDiscord suggested did not work.
• :::::Thank you in advance. Jensenjan (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Here: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. You'll need to hit "Add request" for it to work. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 10:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I learned today about a class taught by User:Hanyangprofessor2 (a declared alias of User:Piotrus), which seems to be outside the Wikipedia:Education program and doesn't really follow the Wikipedia:Student assignments guidance it seems.

The students are, as far as I have seen, expected to translate articles from Chinese or Korean to English or vice versa. Many of the articles are poor (machine?) translations (often unattributed), many with very close paraphrasing issues. I have draftified some of them (from the ones I could find and where the sources were available to check for copyvio), but receive pushback from the students because apparently they only get graded if the article is in the mainspace, not for drafts.

It's rather exhausting dealing with this as its apparently deadline for these so we have a rather large influx, and the responses of the instructor have been for the most part not very encouraging (they have agreed to stop saying the students that they can use AI to create lead sections at least). See User talk:Hanyangprofessor2#Translations for the first and longest discussion, and e.g. User talk:Fram#About Draft: Mini figures for e;g. the information about the grading being dependent on being a live article.

All help, guidance, cleanup ... is welcome. Fram (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just a few clarifications. My courses follow the best practices (I've been involved in designing some of them; I've been one of the first educators assigning students to work on Wikipedia way back in the 2006 :P; heck, WMF even profiled me a decade ago [https://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/11/28/piotrus/] :). My students created more than 1,000 wiki pages since then (list). The current courses have the usual dashboard pages (https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Hanyang_University/Collective_Intelligence_and_Wikipedia_(2025) , https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Hanyang_University/Sociology_of_Everyday_Life_(2025) ). I don't know how Fram calculated that the student creations are "often unattributed". The students are explicitly required to attribute their work in the assignment instructions, which I already told Fram about. Since most of my students are not native speakers of English, some rough or machine translations happens; again, the students are told to proofread their work and follow Wikipedia's guidelines (User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator, Wikipedia:Translation, etc.). Of course, some will not follow the instructions or such, and complain, beg, etc. Business as usual in the edu corner. The attempt to make this into an AI issue is not particularly fair, to say the least; I've told one student they can try to use AI to help them draft a lead section that they should proofread and check for accuracy (it's the AI era in education, and we all experimenting with it, see my AI class module). It's not cool to see this framed as a suggestion that I've been telling students to use AI as a common practice (mob with pitchforks, incoming?); although, realistically, many do this already and will do it more, and we need to figure out aways to deal with it. As for grading being dependent on the article being live, well, that's pretty standard. I guess Fram is pretty new to the WEP and such? Anyway, I've been running these courses for 10+ years, as I've said, and AN(I) dramu doesn't happen often (to say the least; check archives to verify if you want). Business as usual, from my perspective - it's end of the semester here, students are submitting work, and some who have slept through the class till now will try to complete it, and earn extra credit in the last few days, rushing, and creating some below-average content. They are supposed to work in their sandboxes, and publish only after I give them permission, but again, not all pay attention to such details, for which I apologize. If anyone knows how to make student follow instructions and not make mistakes, I'd love to learn :) Anyway, feel free to draftify or userfy anything that you think does not meet our policies. Business as usual, really. Cheers, --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 16:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding AI, I would suggest trying to stay out of it as a whole. Yes, I do understand that AI is widespread, though I would suggest reading WP:LLM. I have also seen questionable AI fact checking, and AI often pushes POVs and does not have understanding of wikipedia policies. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I am catching up on the recent VP discussion; I'll make sure to advise students to be careful when using AIs (and preferably to avoid them). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Unattributed, examples:

::*Draft:Shenzhen Satellite TV: no attribution (and no indication of being a class assignment)

::*Draft:Wanping Metropolitan Park has a completely failed attempt at attribution

::*Guangzhou Jianye Building Fire, no attribution

::*Liu Jintang: only attributed after I complained at Piotrus talk page

::*Jianye Building: no attribution

::*Shoulder Pole Dance: no attribution

::The same seems to be true for older ones, e.g. Fireworks (video game). Fram (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, you found out that not all students will follow the instructions to attribute their work. Many others do. And some of the examples here are so recent the students who wrote them might not have had the time to read my (or your) feedback asking them to attribute stuff. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::See below, nearly all the ones from the previous few years seem to be unattributed translations. Fram (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's nothing new at all https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/instructors/new-instructor-orientation/never-grade-on-what-sticks

::It's literally part of the new instruction orientation. Wayback machine first captured it back in 2020 and I remember hearing it really early on in my career as an editor back in 2018-2019? I forget exactly when, but it's nothing new LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Fram

:I recently accidentally finished one of his student's drafts[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanyangprofessor2#c-Zhuo1221-20250617112800-Hanyangprofessor2-20250617070300], and sort of got to know him, and he asked if I could help ensure the quality of translation[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thehistorianisaac#c-Hanyangprofessor2-20250619015300-Thanks].

:Now, I do think he is acting in good faith, and I agree with the general idea of improving coverage of Chinese(I think there are several other languages he covers but I don't understand those languages) topics by translating Chinese articles. However, I must note that the quality of quite some of the translations, are, rather questionable at times. However, this is a problem for all articles translated from Chinese. Tonnes of translated articles from Chinese(and, I assume, other languages, just that I know Chinese) lack proper attribution(hell, the articles on chinese wikipedia lack attribution themselves, when many of the sources are very easily found), and this isn't a unique problem.

:Personally, i don't see much inherent problems(except I maybe would suggest for @Hanyangprofessor2 to maybe change the deadline system to be more flexible) to this project, and I do support all efforts to improve coverage of Chinese topics, though I do believe more supervision to ensure translation quality is needed. I will, per his request, check some articles translated from Chinese to ensure quality Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Well, for starters grading should not be dependent on being in the mainspace, this puts the students against the new page reviewers and leads to rushed moves back to mainspace without regards for the issues. The work a student put into an article, and the quality of the result, is not dependent on whether it is in userspace, mainspace or draftspace. I have moved some articles to draftspace because I could check the sources and be sure of close paraphrasing issues: these students would now be punished, while others where such a check could not immediately be done by me would be rewarded. One can argue that that isn't our problem, but it leads to students hiding the issues or, like I said, rushing things back to mainspace. No idea how Piotrus will even judge all of these considering that he doesn't speak Chinese. He seems way too optimistic about the quality of these articles though. Fram (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My optimism is based on the ~20 years of history, with 1000+ of articles, out of which, as far as I know, only few percent have been declined post publication. However, it is possible we are seeing a significant decline of quality this year (which may be tied to the growing popularity of AI, as well as some COVID aftershocks in the current crop of students; the jury is still out, but a lot of educators I know are seeing more than their average share of problems this year...). As for deadlines, they require students to be finished a month ago. A lot of them, however, have a very holistic approach to deadlines, so to say... _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't see much difference, I have to say. For starters, the "1000+" articles you boast about are across language versions, let's restrict ourselves to articles on enwiki perhaps? From your list, first one I pick, Liberation Monument in Chongqing, no attribution. That article is a poor, poor translation. The title isn't even in the lead, which lists two other names. It has "sentences" like "The common crystallisation.", or constructions like "The War Victory Monument, one of the projects to implement the "10-year plan or the construction of the accompanying capital", was specially set up as a preparatory committee, [...]"? Other one, Night Corridor, again no indication that it is a translation. Liangshanpo nomenclature dispute, no attribution. IPartment 5, no attribution, in fact, it seems that none of the older ones have attribution, although I undoubtedly have missed some. I see exasperated edit summaries like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starry_Love&diff=1194875568&oldid=1192585476 this one], pages were 80% has been removed as "promotional material"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Agricultural_Museum&diff=1179666214&oldid=1171286534]... Fram (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Like what I said before, the articles on chinese wikipedia lack sources is a long-time problem since 20 years ago. We have many times less user than enwiki.

:::::What's more, most of articles you gave are Simplified Chinese written by PRC users. In my experience on reviewing articles, Simplified Chinese drafts have more copyvio, unreference or promotional problem than Traditional Chinese ones. I think you shouldn't blame all the problem on the students. Kanshui0943 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}} Re: Liberation Monument in Chongqing, we appear to have a halfway decent article on a significant monument that we didn't have before. Yes, there are some minor problems, but on the whole it doesn't look remotely WP:TNT, and the first sentence was changed by a different editor just yesterday. We don't require new users to create GAs-or-nothing. The attribution/translation thing does seem like an easy thing Piotrus could address. Was there a "Hey Piotrus can you make sure your student translations have a translation template" message before escalating to ANI? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Regarding the last part, Fram posted about this on my talk page, and I've told him that yes, this is part of the project. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my explanation (he did so when it was pretty much midnight for me, and I've been grading effectively non-stop since morning). I've no idea why this escalated, really. Something I'll note (that I've said on my talk page too) is that some articles Fram complains about are pretty recent, and the students likely did not have time to read my feedback, which includes the reminder to add the attribution template. In some other cases, they forget about it (in the past I told them to use an edit summary attribution, but they often forgot). Reviewing the older articles and adding the translation attribution template is on my to-do list, but it is also something others can help with (since the list of articles created by my students are public and already linked above). I am also thinking about designing a student activity, in which students of the next few classes will review work of students of the older years and add missing talk page templates (attribution, etc.).

::::::That aside, I do think there's a tendency at AfC or RCP for some folks to demand above-average standards for publishing stuff (as you say "We don't require new users to create GAs-or-nothing" - but I have seen some reviewers who refuse to publish or draftify stuff that would survive AfD). For example, I am concerned about Fram's draftificatins of the following student articles, based on ambigious rationales: Draft:Shenzhen Satellite TV ("Poor quality translation of Chinese article, needs thorough checking to make it even intelliible in parts"), Draft:1958 air battles around Fujian Province ("Translator clearly hasn't checked their sources, as 2, 4 and 6 are useless links"), Draft:History of Chinese Air Force ("Sources time out or are not accessible, and article seems to end at a random place, and has no lead (the "lead" is just the first section chronologically, not a summary)"). For me those read like Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Surmountable_problems, and I believe that if these articles went to AfD, they'd be kept. In fact, I think they should be mainspaced and AfDed (if Fram thinks they don't belong there). Such decisions such be made by the community, not by one random reviewer (and I think this is policy based; no AfC reviewer can hold an article in the draftspace - if the creator insists on publishing content. AfD is the next step, unless problems are serious enough for a speedy). On that note, I am not sure if the speedy request at this student article (Jianye Building) is correct. The linked [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Jianye_Building&url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200309131459/http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2013-12-17/041929001999.shtml Jianye Building | Earwig's Copyvio Detector] report gives me a whooping 0.0% similarity - not just because our article is in English, and the source page is in Chinese; I rerun the check with zh article: [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=zh&project=wikipedia&title=%E5%BB%BA%E6%A5%AD%E5%A4%A7%E5%BB%88&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_engine=1&use_links=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20200309131459%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.sina.com.cn%2Fc%2F2013-12-17%2F041929001999.shtml 建業大廈 | Earwig's Copyvio Detector] and got the same 0%. So what's the problem? The initial reason Fram draftified this was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jianye_Building&diff=prev&oldid=1296521012 Poor quality unattributed translation]. Surmountable problems, again, this wouldn't be deleted at AfD, again. This is some overzealous draftificaiton here, IMHO. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::PS. That said, I do agree some articles Fram drafified were not ready for mainspace, and if the students followed the instructions and asked me for review before mainspacing them, I'd have told them to wait and fix various issues (ex. Draft:Wanping Metropolitan Park, Draft:Mini figures), and likely moved them back to their sandbox myself . So thanks for the help here.

:::::::But I am concerned about how Fram arrives at the close paraphrasing verdicts. Another case: Draft:Gao Yuhan - claim " Very close paraphrasing of https://web.archive.org/web/20120702080224/http://www.ah.xinhuanet.com/jg60nahp/2009-09/28/content_17836424.htm and perhaps other sources". Well, copyvio report for zh texts again is 0%: [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=zh&project=wikipedia&title=%E9%AB%98%E8%AF%AD%E7%BD%95&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_engine=1&use_links=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20120702080224%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ah.xinhuanet.com%2Fjg60nahp%2F2009-09%2F28%2Fcontent_17836424.htm 高語罕 | Earwig's Copyvio Detector] Another: Draft:Du Guoxiang ("very close paraphrasing of https://web.archive.org/web/20081121182001/http://chaozhinan.com/blog/hxz/article/7492.html). 0% again. [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=zh&project=wikipedia&title=%E6%9D%9C%E5%9B%BD%E5%BA%A0&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_engine=1&use_links=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20081121182001%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fchaozhinan.com%2Fblog%2Fhxz%2Farticle%2F7492.html 杜国庠 | Earwig's Copyvio Detector] What's going on here? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Because it will compare every word in the website. I tried the tool many times, but it wasn't usefull. I still have to check by myself. And I check the Chinese version of Draft:Du Guoxiang, it definitely copy others. So does Jianye Building Chinese version. Kanshui0943 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Kanshui0943 Thank you. Will you report those articles for cleanup on Chinese Wikipedia? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've reported. Kanshui0943 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Kanshui0943 Thank you, it's good to see constructive outcomes from this discussion _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am draft reviewer from zhwiki, we recently found the problem too. The articles translated from en to zh usually have bad translation. I suggested the proffesor to let the students read [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TNESE WP:TNESE] in zhwiki before, but the problem still. I think it's the students' problem.

:(btw @Thehistorianisaac, the articles on chinese wikipedia lack sources is a long-time problem since 20 years ago) Kanshui0943 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::All Wikipedias have the same problem, old articles on en are no different. Tnx for the link, I'll add it as a required reading for students translating to zh wiki (alongside :zh:维基百科:翻译腔/城墙, :zh:维基百科:翻译腔, and :zh:维基百科:翻譯指引.) Of course, whether they actually read it, and understand it, and bother to follow the rules, that's a separate issue... _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Another suggestion: in different language link, zhwiki often use :zh:Template:Internal link helper, not Template:Interlanguage link . Kanshui0943 (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks, I'll update my instructions accordingly. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHanyangprofessor2&diff=1296551456&oldid=1296549260 Done]. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 17:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Does seem like pretty standard end-of-semester stuff (and I sympathize with the whole students and reading-the-rules stuff :) ), but two quick things for {{u|Piotrus}}: a quick "I'll be checking these articles for translation templates and other obvious errors when the semester wraps up" would probably be reassuring (it's possible you've already done this). Also, just FWIW, I think the education program broadly (or at least Wiki Education in particular) discourages grading based on what "sticks" in mainspace, given desperate students are prone to doing desperate things when such conditions are present. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Rhododendrites Good points. As I've told Fram on my talk page, adding the translation attribution template is part of the instructions for the students, and is a common part of my feedback to them, since many do forget about it. And it is something I am stressing much more this year. If you CTRL+F for WP:TFOLWP on my current talk page, you will see that I mention it oh, 50+ times or so (i.e. I remind about ~50 different students to follow this). Maybe next year I'll design a module in which the students practice doing this more.

::And I see the point about "what sticks". Of course, students get points for effort, too; but it also makes sense that the ones who do a better job (whose content is successfully mainspaced) get more credit that the ones who fail to do so and whose work is never good enough to leave the draftspace or whose work is returned there quickly and who are unable to address the problems raised. Another way to look at it is that students who successfully complete steps related to research, writing, and such (to quote WikEdu's recommendation, "they're graded on the research process and quality of the work they add") should be able to mainspace their stuff. So just as the cited recommendation says, "Never grade based on what sticks", of course, majority of the grade is not based on that, but in practice, being able to mainspace their work without it getting rejected (draftified/userfied) is a proof that they completed previous, required steps. Which means that students who fail to get their work mainspaced will be sometimes be getting lower score, not because they did not get their stuff to "stick", but because (if) they failed to do successfully complete the "research process and quality of the work" parts. I say if, because it is case based. Sometimes the students will choose an article to translate that passes my initial inspection but other problems surface later, such as close paraphrasing from a foreign language source or such (this is particularly common late in the semester when students choose their own topics without asking me for permission first, as they are required to do at the beginning of the semester). In such cases, I will still give them pretty much full credit for effort - it is not their fault they faithfully translated and wikified content that was just problematic at the target wiki.(To avoid this, I generally recommend them to choose articles which are at GA+ level, but there's just not enough content at this level to work with, sadly; particularly after all these years, and given other GA+ translation initiatives such as OKA). I hope this is clearer now? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 00:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But according to LiAnna from Wiki Ed as of this April: “Being graded on content actually appearing on Wikipedia is not allowed in Wiki Education's program”

:::See this page and select “Class demanding published/reviewed articles for a grade” 173.177.179.61 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify: my teaching is not supported by Wiki Ed. Wiki Ed provides no support to programs outside US & Canada. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Strange, above you claimed that "As for grading being dependent on the article being live, well, that's pretty standard. I guess Fram is pretty new to the WEP and such? " But when the evidence that it isn't standard in WEP gets too much to ignore, your cop-out for doing it anyway is that your teaching is not supported by WEP? The longer this goes on, the less I'm impressed by your defense and your attempts to shift the blame. Fram (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::And I am less and less impressed with your behavior, too, likewise (blame for what? For introducing hundreds of students to Wikipedia, and having them create hundreds of articles, vast majority of which is still in mainspace?). C'est la vie. Feel free to have the last word in this thread - I have work to do; and since this branch of discussion is not looking pretty, well, if one has nothing good to say, I am going to try to follow the advice of one of my GAs: Speech is silver, silence is golden. (And when grading is done, I am looking forward to some constructive editing as well; rather than doing the oh-so-constructive discussing at ANI although I appreciate the few constructive ideas here, which I've used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHanyangprofessor2&diff=1297146557&oldid=1295686643 to revise my instructions for the students] - thanks to those that suggested them). _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If only you had followed your advice a bit earlier instead of obstructing cleanup efforts and creating more work, like with your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJianye_Building&diff=1297147397&oldid=1297146985 remark] at Talk:Jianye Building, where more and more close paraphrasing is found but all you can do is question whether deletion or extreme stubifying is really needed. Still taking the credit for the "hundreds" of articles, which better all get checked for the same issues as the ones from this year. We already saw that many of them lacked the necessary attribution. Checking a random one from the previous series, Nanko Historical and Geographical Society, I see e.g. that the article has

:::::::*"On March 24, 1943, the inaugural meeting of the Chinese Historical Society was held at the National Central Library. More than 120 individuals attended the event, including Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Fang Hao, Lei Haizong, Miao Fenglin, Chen Xunci, Zhang Qiyun, Zheng Hesheng, Wei Juxian, and Wu Qichang. Gu Jiegang served as the chair of the meeting and delivered the opening address. During the meeting, the Constitution of the Chinese Historical Society was adopted, and directors and supervisors were elected, including 21 directors.On March 26, 1943, the first joint meeting of the board of directors and supervisors of the society was convened. Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Zhu Xizu, Miao Fenglin, and Chen Xunci, among others, were elected as executive directors, totaling nine in all."

:::::::while the source[https://history.nju.edu.cn/02/ee/c28628a459502/page.htm] has

:::::::*"On March 24, 1943, [...] the founding meeting of the Chinese Historical Society was also held at the National Library. More than 120 people attended the meeting, including Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Fang Hao, Lei Haizong, Miao Fenglin, Chen Xunci, Zhang Qiyun, Zheng Hesheng, Wei Juxian, and Wu Qichang. Gu Jiegang served as the chairman of the meeting and delivered the opening speech. The meeting passed the "Charter of the Chinese Historical Society" and elected directors and supervisors, including 21 directors[...] On March 26, 1943, the first joint meeting of directors and supervisors of the Chinese Historical Society was held, and 9 people including Gu Jiegang, Fu Sinian, Zhu Xizu, Miao Fenglin and Chen Xunci were elected as executive directors."

:::::::I hope that your "constructive editing" when this is over will be "going through all these enwiki articles and getting rid of all copyvio and close paraphrasing". Fram (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If you provided detailed rationale first, instead of draftifying content using vague edit summaries on Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE problems ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jianye_Building&diff=prev&oldid=1296521012 diff]), we wouldn't have to deal with much of this, either. Copyvio issues are serious. Few awkward sentences or forgetting to attribute a freely licensed source (another wiki), much less so.

::::::::Anyway, I've added instructions to my course that should, in theory, reduce this type of problem - if students follow instructions. As I said before, I also encourage you to start a discussion at aforementioned official translation guides, applicable to all editors, not just my students, suggesting such checks (for close paraphrasing) are suggested as best practice. Right now, they are neither required nor recommended for translators. A separate issue concerns the question what percentage of articles from zh wiki is affected by this issue, and should be discourage any and all translations from that project? I doubt my students are the only people around here translating articles from zh wiki to en wiki. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This section was started after the copyvio with that and other articles was indicated, and your whole contribution to that article is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jianye_Building&diff=1296523412&oldid=1296521158 this] useful but hardly exhausting edit. At the time of that first draftification, the article was called Central China Building, a term that didn't appear in the article. The image caption read "A building wrapped in a construction shed after a fire, 2020". The notes about the copyvio on that article followed 43 minutes later. The notes about copyvio on another article in the project was already posted 4 minutes after the first draftification of the Central China Building article. It's not as if these copyvio issues only were raised after this discussion was started or days in the process; they were there within minutes of this.

:::::::::And all of that doesn't explain how, if I had draftified that one article with a close paraphrasing indication 41 minutes earlier, "we wouldn't have to deal with much of this, either. Copyvio issues are serious. " You are again, just like I said right above, shifting the blame. And are here pretending that you believe that copyvio issues are serious, but at the same time complaining that a copyvio-riddled article would be reduced to one sentence without even checking if there was further copyvio there (Talk:Jianye Building). Your replies seem to be worth as much as your words in your previous post here, "Feel free to have the last word in this thread". Fram (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::While I believe you should work on your adherence to Wikipedia:Civility (see this proverb), as I said, I recognize good suggestions have been made by you and others, and I've revised my instructions - I will be tweaking them more later. In particular, I am going to prioritize acceptable translations from zh and ko to only articles that have passed GA+ level screening on zh wiki, given the widespread problems we learned about, or to articles where the student assures me, they have verified that references support the content, and that no close paraphrasing exists I am also going to stress to them that they should work in sandbox or draftspace, and not publish their work unless they receive permission to do so from me, another reviewer, or if they feel confident they understand the requirements for article to exist in the mainspace and feel they have met them. Once again, I appreciate your feedback, but pretty please, try to remember about CIV, WP:AGF, etc. We are all here to improve this project, and translating content between Wikipedia is, in principle, a best practice.

::::::::::To quote from Wikipedia:Translation#Classroom_collaborations:

::::::::::{{cquote|Wikipedia welcomes the involvement of students in article editing. Article translation is particularly well-suited to student involvement. Such efforts provide useful, real-world translation experience for students, who will be motivated by the fact that their work will be seen by thousands of Wikipedia readers. They also benefit Wikipedia readers, who gain access to information about other cultures and peoples.

}}

::::::::::_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 02:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Does that mean that programs outside Canada and US are able to act without any guidelines at all? I would assume they would be stricter than associated programs, not less so. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am an educator as well, but probably a lower grade level than Piotrus's class above. I sympathise that students struggle with following instructions, especially when approaching a deadline. However, Wikipedia is not a dropbox of student work: it is an encyclopedia. Other editors should not be draftifying and removing articles from the mainspace from students that Piotrus is supervising, and the instructions should not include extra points for having work published on Wikipedia. I would also caution Piotrus that getting marks for having work published on Wikipedia might conflict with WP:PAID, as students are being compensated with grades for publishing edits.

:Instead, students can write articles in the Wikipedia style and publish in a userspace or course module run by the institution. After work is marked and assessed by an instructor, it can be recommended for posting on Wikipedia, but the decision to publish should be up to the student. It is also bad pedagogy in my opinion to require student work to be published on the Internet, as not all students want this and publishing their work on Wikipedia is not required to demonstrate learning.

:Piotrus should reach out to WikiEd immediately for additional guidance: even if they don't officially run courses outside North America, they might be able to provide guidance. Piotrus should also immediately remove the extra marks for publishing on Wikipedia from the assignment, as grading student work does not require publishing it on Wikipedia. I would support a topic ban for all of Wikipedia (not just Piotrus) for any educator to require or give extra marks for students who publish their work on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Should WikiEd instruct teachers how to set up a local install of MediaWiki to have a class-specific instance to work in? That would allow them to do this sort of work in a safe space (safe for them and us). Students could always publish to en.wiki when they think it is worthwhile, but wouldn't shower en.wiki with student projects as happens currently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Z1720 Fair points (some). Although a lot of what you proposing is not, AFAIK, standard procedure for most courses or wiki-a-thons, I'll double things with WikiEd. Perhaps some things have changed in the years since I was involved in designing the best practice guides, which WikiEdu and others relied on (many) years ago. In the meantime, I'll revise my instructions to recommend to students that they are not required to publish their work in the mainspace, that doing so in their sandbox is sufficient for their grading purposes, and that publishing it in the mainspace is not required. Note that my instructions already state that the students should work in their sandbox first, and this is where all the main project are started, and later, it states that "can" publish in the mainspace - they do not require the publication. Perhaps some of my individual advice was worded a bit differently, as I thought student contributions, on average, are improving Wikipedia and are welcome. I will double check that with WikiEd. In either case, , some students are rushing now and creating articles in the mainspace forgetting about their sandbox - I'll revise the workflow for the next semester, although in the end I don't have perfect control over what the students edit, exactly, and in which mainspace. Note that this will affect future editing; the editing for this semester is almost finished. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it is necessary to remove all mention of mainspace from the grading criteria, both for passing and for extra credit. Its effect has been to place the students in conflict with people doing maintenance, to the frustration of both and imposing load on our processes. I have seen this in Chinese topics over very poor quality additions, and even experienced it personally on one occasion. Kanguole 08:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Propose Indefinite Block of both Piotrus and the student accounts for WP:NOTHERE. 70.20.38.238 (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::There is no reason at all to block the students. Educate, warn, block, not instant block for following (more or less) the instructions they received. Fram (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Above, Piotrus expresses concerns with my close paraphrasing claims, where he can't find any similarities (well, he let's a tool do the job for him). Some examples from a really quick check of one source on each article (the source text translated by Google Chrome, rightclick, translate to English)

1. Jianye Building from [https://web.archive.org/web/20200309131459/http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2013-12-17/041929001999.shtml here], currently source 3

• "The indoor fire hydrant system and fire system of the building have been installed, but there are walls, temporary transformers and communication and power overhead lines on the fire lanes on the south and west sides of the building, which affect the use of the fire lanes, resulting in the building not obtaining the 《Fire Acceptance Opinion》."
• At present, the building's indoor fire hydrant system and fire system... have been installed... However, due to the presence of walls, temporary transformers, and communication and power overhead lines on the fire lanes on the south and west sides of the building, the use of the fire lanes has been affected, resulting in the building not obtaining the "Fire Acceptance Qualification Opinion".

• "In 1993, No. 271-231 Guangzhou Qiyi Road [zh] , Yuexiu District , was approved as Jianye Building, to be developed by Guangzhou Jianye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. In 1995, after approval, construction began, and the sales process began in December of that year. According to the contract, Jianye Building should be delivered to the buyer before June 30, 1998."
• "In 1993, No. 271-231 Qiyi Road, Yuexiu District was approved as Jianye Building, and the developer was Guangzhou Jianye Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. After review in 1995, construction began and in December of that year, the sale process began. According to the contract, on June 30, 1998, Jianye Building should be delivered to the purchaser for use."

1. Draft:Gao Yuhan[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gao_Yuhan&oldid=1296522456 version I complained about] vs. [https://web.archive.org/web/20120702080224/http://www.ah.xinhuanet.com/jg60nahp/2009-09/28/content_17836424.htm] current source 2, examples:

• "In his early years, he studied at the Jing Shi School in Fengyang County. In 1905 (the 31st year of the 光绪 [zh] Emperor's reign), he was admitted to the Army Surveying and Mapping School in Anqing."
• " In his early years, he studied at Fengyang Jingshi School. In the 31st year of Emperor Guangxu's reign (1905), he was admitted to Anqing Army Surveying and Mapping School. "

• "At the end of the 3rd year of the Republic of China (1914), Gao Yuhan went to Shanghai and joined Chen Duxiu and others in initiating the New Culture Movement. He subsequently published a series of articles in New Youth, including Youth and the Nation’s Future, The Enemy of Youth, and A Painful Memory of Qingdao.In the autumn of the 5th year of the Republic (1916), Gao moved to Wuhu, where he served as the academic inspector of 安徽省立第五中学 [zh] and also taught English."
• " At the end of the 3rd year of the Republic of China, he went to Shanghai and actively participated in the New Culture Movement initiated by Chen Duxiu and others. He published articles such as "The Future of Youth and the Country", "The Enemy of Youth", and "The Painful Story of Qingdao" in "New Youth". In the autumn of the 6th year of the Republic of China, he went to Wuhu and served as the supervisor of the Provincial No. 5 Middle School and taught English."

• " That same year, Gao joined the German Branch of the CCP European General Branch. In June 1924 (the 13th year of the Republic), Gao wrote a preface for Jiang Guangci's new poetry collection New Dream (Xin Meng)."
• "In the same year, he joined the German branch of the Chinese Communist Party's European branch. In June 1924, he wrote the preface for Jiang Guangci's new poetry collection "New Dream"."

• "On March 20 of the same year, the Canton Coup occurred. Chiang Kai-shek accused Gao Yuhan, Yun Daiying, Deng Yanda, and Zhang Zhizhong of being the “Four Evils of Whampoa” and ordered their arrest, though the order was later withdrawn. Gao then relocated to Shanghai. In the autumn of that year, Gao introduced A Ying to the Chinese Communist Party."
• " On March 20, the "Zhongshan Ship Incident" occurred. Chiang Kai-shek accused Gao Yuhan, Yun Daiying, Deng Yanda, and Zhang Zhizhong of being the "Four Evils of Huangpu" and ordered their arrest, but later withdrew the order. Gao Yuhan went to Shanghai and introduced Ah Ying to the party in the autumn."

And so on...

1. Draft:Du Guoxiang[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Du_Guoxiang&oldid=1296521402 version I complained about] vs. [https://web.archive.org/web/20081121182001/http://chaozhinan.com/blog/hxz/article/7492.html source 2]

• "In the spring of 1925, Du Guoxiang left Peking University due to ideological disagreements with its leading figures, Hu Shi and Jiang Menglin. He returned to his hometown and became the principal of 澄海中学 [zh] in Chenghai County, Guangdong Province. In October, after the victory of the National Revolutionary Army’s Second Eastern Expedition, he was invited by Zhou Enlai, then serving as the Administrative Commissioner of the Dongjiang Region, to assume the roles of Chairman of the Kuomintang Chenghai County Executive Committee and Principal of 潮州金山中学 [zh]. In 1927, when the Nanchang Uprising forces entered the Chaoshan area, Du was once again appointed by Zhou Enlai as County Magistrate of Chaoyang County. However, he did not take office due to the uprising’s defeat in Chaoshan."
• "In the spring of 1925, Du Guoxiang left Peking University and returned to his hometown to serve as the principal of Chenghai Middle School due to disagreements with Hu Shi and Jiang Menglin, who presided over Peking University. In October of that year, at the invitation of Zhou Enlai, who served as the administrative committee member of Dongjiang after the victory of the Second Eastern Expedition of the National Revolutionary Army, he served as the chairman of the Executive Committee of Chenghai County of the Kuomintang and the principal of Jinshan Middle School in Chaozhou. In 1927, when the Nanchang Uprising Army entered Chaoshan, he was appointed by Zhou Enlai as the county magistrate of Chaoyang County (but he did not take office because the uprising army failed in Chaoshan)."

• "In February 1928, Du Guoxiang arrived in Shanghai and, through the introduction of Jiang Guangci and Qian Xingcun, joined the Chinese Communist Party. He helped initiate the founding of the 太阳社 [zh] (Taiyang She), one of the most prominent literary groups of the time. Together with fellow Chaozhou-born writers active in the Shanghai literary scene, such as 洪灵菲 [zh] and 戴平万 [zh], he also co-founded the We Society我们社 [zh] (Women She). Du translated a large number of theoretical, social science, and literary works from Western and Japanese sources."
• "In February 1928, Du Guoxiang arrived in Shanghai and joined the Communist Party of China through the introduction of Jiang Guangci and Qian Xingcun. He actively participated in cultural and academic activities under the leadership of the Party, participated in the establishment of the "Sun Society", one of the most famous literary groups at the time, and organized the "Our Society" with Chaozhou writers Hong Lingfei and Dai Pingwan who were active in the Shanghai literary world. He translated a large number of Western and Japanese theoretical, social science works and novels."

• "In August 1937, Du Guoxiang successively served as a captain-level secretary in the Military Law Section of the Eighth Route Army, leader of a battlefield service team, and later as Chief of the First Section (in charge of foreign publicity) of the Third Department of the Political Affairs Commission under the Military Affairs Commission of the National Government, where Guo Moruo was the director. Later, both Du and Guo resigned from their posts after refusing to join the Kuomintang, and Du was reassigned as a member of the Cultural Work Committee, which remained under the same Political Department."
• "In August 1937, Du Guoxiang successively served as the captain secretary of the Military Law Department of the Eighth Route Army, the captain of the battlefield service team, and the chief of the first section in charge of external propaganda in the third department of the Political Department of the Military Commission of the National Government, where Guo Moruo served as the director. Later, he resigned with Guo Moruo because he refused to join the Kuomintang and became a member of the Cultural Work Committee, which was still under the Political Department."

I fear that many of the translated articles have the exact same issues of copyvio/close paraphrasing, but from sources I couldn't access. It would be unlikely that I just stumbled on the only ones with such issues. And apparently we can't rely on the instructor to catch these, as they can't find them even when the source of the problem is explicitly given. Fram (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:So Earwig does not work on Chinese texts? Good to know; I thought it did and I was relying on it. Is there a better tool to use for Chinese corpus?

:It is unfortunate that zh wiki has such content. The close paraphrasing was not added by student; they just translated content from zh wiki, which contained the reported problem. Most translation guides, as far as I know, do not require translators to check for close paraphrasing, as it is assumed that the original text has been checked for that. I do not see a mention of checking for close plagiarism in translation guides I am familiar with (Wikipedia:Translation or User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator, as well as the excellent, IMHO, :meta:OKA/Instructions for editors). It may be an interesting best practice to consider, however. I'll add a note of this to my instructions for future classes so that my advice and requirements for students go beyond what even our best practices for average editors, cited above, require. Thanks for spotting that in the listed articles; I suggest you add that analysis to their talk pages and ping their creators. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|So Earwig does not work on Chinese texts? Good to know; I thought it did and I was relying on it.}} In general Earwig does not detect copyright-violating translations. This isn't unique to Chinese; it's a limitation with the way Earwig works in general. It is also possible to closely paraphrase in a way which is undetectable by Earwig and yet still forbidden by Wikipedia policy. See my essay WP:NOTEARWIG for further discussion of Earwig's limitations. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:"It would be unlikely that I just stumbled on the only ones with such issues." Yeah, this is puzzling, I've been thinking about it for a while now, since you mention it. Is it a widespread problem on zh wiki? Should we ban all translations from zh wiki, or introduce special requirements? (In the past, most of my students were Korean and were translating from ko wiki; in the last few years the percentage of Chinese exchange students in my classes skyrocketed, however, which means about half of the content being translated, if not more, is now from zh wiki. That could be a partial answer, if zh wiki does is affected by this to a much bigger degree than ko wiki - but is it? Do we have any data?). Or is there some bias in the type of articles my students chose? The sample above is two biographies and one architecture topic; I don't know what others you checked. The spotchecks I did in the past and do did not found such issues - not regularly, at least; it happens every now and then, of course, in which case I tell the student to rewrite the affected content, of course. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Fram@Hanyangprofessor2 My solution is, we simply allow for more supervision of translated articles to make sure the translation and sourcing is correct. Reliable sources are not hard to find usually, just people, for some reason, forget to add them. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::PS. I'll ping @TheLonelyPather, whose guide that I linked above was designed explicitly with Chinese students in mind. Maybe they have some ideas on what the source of the problem is, and what best practices to adopt to deal with it. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @Hanyangprofessor2, thanks for pinging. If you don't mind I will get back to you in a few days on this—the discussion above will take me an hour to go through at least. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Hanyangprofessor2 I've now read through the conversation above. A few thoughts:

::::# I believe that Wikipedia is a good educational tool at the end of the day to practice cyber-citizenship, public information use, and many skills critically necessary for our age. I do appreciate Piotrus' good intention on this matter. His past experience is extensive.

::::# I also agree that many students produce poor translations that are not suitable for English Wikipedia. I wrote my translation guide with them in mind, but it seems that many of them have not read it. (Perhaps I should write a Chinese version?) Poor translations are due to many different reasons. From my own experience the following are the most substantial factors:

:::::: i) Chinese Wikipedia has a lot of poorly written articles. This is something we cannot change. The internet in China, generally speaking, has poor copyright enforcement. Unattributed information fly around.

:::::: ii) Students may not be proficient in English. Indeed, competence is expected, but educators and other Wikipedians could be slightly more lenient to students, provided that they demonstrate intention to learn.

::::In this discussion I do not wish to dive into specific articles and their problems. I think the crux of the problem is that students need to take accountability over their work. To me this is a fair expectation, as it is expected in all other academic settings. In this sense, I recommend the following practices:

::::* {{green|Make each and every student read}} Wikipedia:Translation and User:TheLonelyPather/Essays/Guide for a translator, or some compiled info hosted on a personal page under the Hanyangprofessor2 account. I am happy to amend my guide for educational purposes.

::::* {{green|Create a vetting mechanism}} over the initial article chosen by the students. One may use some key figures to ensure fairness, such as

:::::** Number of different references / sources

:::::** Density of references / sources, which can be roughly calculated by the number of footnotes divided by the character count

::::: Alternatively, the student could give a brief explanation to Piotrus on why the article is suitable for translation after reading the translation guides.

::::To say my philosophy in a different way: students are not responsible for the existence of poor articles on Chinese Wikipedia, but they should be responsible for their translations.

::::To aid this issue, it would be good to build a good collection of translatable articles from Chinese Wikipedia. I believe that WikiProject China has a list of them, and any China-savvy Wikipedian would not hesitate to share a few articles. With this in mind, I offer the third recommendation.

::::* {{green|Encourage students to translate articles suggested by WikiProject China or other important articles}}, and perhaps discourage them from translating articles that pertain to their own personal background / interest but may be poorly written.

:::::

::::I believe that @Fram raised a valid question on this issue. I would like to know what you all think about this. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@TheLonelyPather A Chinese language version of the guide would help - a bit . I am pretty sure that a significant percentage of my students can't be bothered to read the syllabus. For example, one of the classes has a requirement that the students need to edit Wikipedia weekly (making small constructive edits), or receive a penalty. This is written in the syllabus and I reminded my students about it several times. Yet only about half of the students carried out this activity.

:::::"Students may not be proficient in English". Indeed. I estimate that most of my students are not, and some are barely at the beginner level. My class theoretically requires them to be fluent in English, but to actually check if this is the case is not in my power (it's an administrative technicality, long story; boils down to the reality that many students who take my classes don't understand English and rely on machine translation, up to and including for listening and communicating with me). This is why I have long ago allowed students to translate to Chinese and Korean, languages in which they are presumably fluent. To be clear: no student of mine is REQUIRED to translate content to English Wikipedia. It's their own choice which language they translate to.

:::::"Make each and every student read [policies]". Of course - they are required to do so, and reminded often. But many do not do so, and no instructor can force an unwilling student to do stuff.

:::::"Create a vetting mechanism over the initial article chosen by the students." I have this at User:Piotrus/Ideas for students, but the vetting I do is limited to English content, since I can read it myself; for translation to en wiki (which, I repeat, are not obligatory for my classes) I have fewer and mostly more generic suggestions that include various to-do and wanted articles lists and such. But from my experience most students seem to choose topics at random; if I see that has a good density of references that look reliable (books, newspapers, etc.) I approve it. Note that this is the procedure for early selections. Later, as students become familiar with Wikipedia, they behave like any other editor - they chose and translate whatever they want to. I am not their lord and overseer, or gatekeeper of the content they translate or edit; they are not my wiki-slaves :P Anyway, I am going to revise this and stress that it's best idea to select articles that are GA or FA. I'll see if I can get a Wikidata query to output such lists, but I fear that there may simply not be enough topics that are officially recognized at that level to translate sustainably. "it would be good to build a good collection of translatable articles from Chinese Wikipedia" - I'd love to be able to do this; again, what I've done is at my "ideas" page. If anyone is familiar with a better resource I can add there, or such, please let me know. I'd love for my students to translate only the best quality and least problematic content, but how to find such content in practice is something that is not easy. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 12:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don’t know if it is just me, but it seems extremely strange and counter-intuitive to teach a translation class when one does not speak one of the languages involved. I speak barely passable French, which is why I would not try to edit in French or translate French pages to English. Similarly, I would view myself as wildly unqualified to teach French speakers how to translate French articles to English; I would have no way to adequately verify the translation as accurate! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Chinese articles sometimes violate copyvio, especially those wrote by China writer. In :zh:WP:CV, lots of articles having copyright problem copy Baidu Baike. Kanshui0943 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Kanshui0943

:::This ain't just a chinese wikipedia problem. Outside of english wikipedia rule enforcement is seriosuly lacking(and even on EN wikipedia it still is).

:::There is a possibility that baidu baike editors may have also copied it from chinese wikipedia(or both, really). On the same topic, Chinese articles often have a bit of POV in them, partially due to the fact that it's quite hard to avoid POV completely when writing in Chinese, though if you read any article on Chinese wikipedia about chinese female celebrities it's to the point it's hard to look at(as in it's not just promotional, it's just fans glazing them.). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::By its design Earwig only catches copyvio in the same language (and it can be hit or miss for same text, non-English languages). it will never catch copyvio if you run it through a machine translator and post on a different language wiki.

::You need to have a lot of experience to spot translation copyvio, and even if you suspect something is amiss it is not always possible to confirm whether there is or not.

::IMO it is better to avoid having an article than to have a bad or worse yet illegal one—so I'm very skeptical of projects that give rewards for getting stuff into the mainspace. I agree with other editors that it's a perverse incentive. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's pretty basic in education to require students to complete stuff. It's also pretty standard in our Wikimedia community; this is how most edit-a-thons and such work. The ones I've seen involve folks creating articles in the sandbox, that are then published by the end of the even as long as they meet minimum standards (i.e. the reviewing organizers think they are not likely to end up deleted :P). The educational assignments just stretch that period from a single day (rarely, few days for larger edit-a-thons) to weeks or months. Not to mention that some stuff involves expansion of existing articles rather than outright creation of a new one (which bypasses a lot of AfC/RC control, for better or worse...); I've never even heard of an event, class or edit-a-thon, that would involve copying existing article to sandbox/draft space, improving it there, then merging back (so such edits happen in mainspace, and cannot even be reasonably expected not to).

:::As for not having bad articles better than having them - do you think we should speedy deleted everything tagged by {{tl|unreferenced}}? :P The community consensus has long ago made this a WP:DEADHORSE. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 01:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Are the students actually instructed that they should check the sources and verify that the information they post here is actually included in the sources? Because in many cases, I see sources that aren't accessible anymore. I draftified Draft:Battle of Subei for this reason, but something like Beijing-Miyun Water Diversion Canal is largely based on an unavailable source as well (both the [http://www.bjdfz.gov.cn/search/markChapterFrameSet.jsp?Page_No=312&Identifier=ISBN7-200-04180-7&Period_Diff=&Mark_Name=%CB%AE%C0%FB%D6%BE direct link]] and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190222073923/http://www.bjdfz.gov.cn/search/markChapterFrameSet.jsp?Page_No=312&Identifier=ISBN7-200-04180-7&Period_Diff=&Mark_Name=%CB%AE%C0%FB%D6%BE archive link] give me no usable results). And when sources are accessible, e.g. for China Movie Channel, we get something like [https://www.bilibili.com/bangumi/play/ep260849 this???] (and of course again close paraphrasing where I could check it, e.g. from [https://www.1905.com/news/20100816/383242.shtml here]). If we wanted editors who posted machine translations without even checking the references, we could better use bots and spare them the work. Fram (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:PAYWALL "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Offline sources like books and such are perfectly fine. The Canal article is a GA on zh wiki. The source can be tracked down with some effort: ISBN 7-200-04180-7, p. 312. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'll take that as a "no" to my actual question then. If the translators have not checked the original sources, they don't know if their translation matches the meaning of the source, they clearly don't know if the source has been summarized or plagiarized (hence many problems with this), and so on. Fram (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh, the idea itself isn't bad, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/Ideas_for_students&diff=prev&oldid=1296764615 did add it to the instructions]. But if you expect most of the students to actually, do it... Anyway, it isn't even a best practice we require from your average translator. Shrug. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I can see both sides here. On the one hand, WP:PAYWALL is absolutely, and rightfully, a thing, when it applies to the original article creation. On the other, Fram makes a good point - a translator who doesn't have the original source can't be sure it was correctly used. On the gripping hand, we need to assume good faith that it was unless demonstrated otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Having read this thread, I would say we definitely should not assume good faith from the original Chinese articles with regards to copyvio/source fidelity. Articles that have multiple inaccessible sources providing meaningful text support just shouldn't be translated for this class. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::As an example of perverse incentives of requiring an article in mainspace, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Promotion_of_Standard_Chinese&diff=prev&oldid=1264959629 here] is one of these students, after having their poor translation deleted multiple times, begging for the text to stand in mainspace until the end of term. They then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Promotion_of_Standard_Chinese_(Tuipu)&diff=prev&oldid=1264971466 pasted] a copy under another title. Kanguole 19:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Fair; I am revising the instructions to make it clear mainspace publication is not tied to the student's grade. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 09:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}

I've just sent three recently created articles to AfD of pretty much the same thing of Police stations!

• :Tongi East Thana
• :Gacha Thana
• :Bason Thana

by the time I saw the forth one (:Pubail Thana) in the new page queue, I feel this is a problem and it's down to the user who I had a look at and the history on his talk page shows a serious issue of creating content which is more or less mostly deleted and appears to be a continuing issue. Can we block this user from creating any more articles? Govvy (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Woah calm down there, first of all, just because i have a few flaws does not mean i should not create any more pages, please first make the user understand through your research, i have tried to do the best for Wikipedia from November 2023, and i have stopped vandalism and created pages about important topics, fixed formats, fixed issues and other things, and second, many users have faced 5 or 10 or even more AfDs over time, that is not a reason for blocking such a contributor. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thats like being a teacher and the student trying but having issues and deciding to expel the student forever, thats not gonna fix the issue, in fact it will only backfire, what is supposed to be done is to teach the student now what issue have i done here, plus those thanas arent just police stations and yes, thanas are police stations but there are some differences, urban thanas (you can find details at the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics) and rural thanas have a few differences, rural thanas' administrative value has shifted to upazilas while there may not be upazilas in many urban areas and then urban thanas have some administrative value and serve both purposes, for law and administration. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia is not meant to be directory on what's where. You have created a lot of articles, that have been deleted. There does seem to be a problem here and you're still creating issues and work load for others which is very irksome. Significant coverage is a pretty evident our the policy which is something I feel you have failed to do. Govvy (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, thats your opinion, its not like i am sitting around and doing nothing, I know it is not a directory, i myself use that argument but i try to add relevant information, i am not creating articles on homes of each person or numbers or simple unimportant topics, if i ever increased the workload on someone, i am sorry but that is the reality of the platform, everyone increases workload even if it is not their intention, not just me, but everyone including you, me, and others on the platform and about significant coverage, i try my best to make the pages pass SIGCOV, but these methods of just preventing a new contributor with good intentions and immense contributions from ever doing anything again for a few flaws that may occur for everyone is like finding one moldy bread in your house, and then threatening to shut down the company forever. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, My response: If the real issue is lack of sourcing, then deletion or escalation to ANI doesn’t seem like the right first step. A tag, a talk page message, or a cleanup request would’ve worked just as well — that’s what collaboration is for.  

::: 

:::And regarding “creating workload”: I get it. Cleanup and nominations, being careless about other countries but still trying to determine administrative legitimacy takes effort. But so does mass-nominating articles, launching ANI threads, and blasting other contributors' phones with notifications. Let’s be real — we all create some workload. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Govvy}}, do you read Bengali? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Nope, I use this invention called Google translator know! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Neither do I, but, Bengali being a widely understood language in English-speaking countries, I'm sure that we have plenty of editors who can do a better job than Google at understanding the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue, not a block-worthy ANI issue. I suggest taking this to user and/or article talk pages to work out your concerns. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title=Articles created by BangladeshiEditorInSylhet}}

{{collapse bottom}}

:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet creating inappropriate articles is a chronic problem going back to the first article they created, more than a year ago. They have received numerous warning about this on their talk page, in discussions elsewhere, and in the form of cleanup tags on their articles.

:They have created 130 articles. Forty-seven (36%) are no longer stand alone articles (22 deleted, 13 draftified, 7 redirected, and 5 merged). Another 10 are at AfD now. There has been no consensus on three of their articles. One has been kept at AfD.

:Govvy is far from the only editor who has expressed concern. Others who have PRODed, nominated for deletion, draftified, or redirected BangladeshiEditorInSylhet's articles on non-notable topics include: {{U|Chronos.Zx}}, {{U|Daiyusha}}, {{U|Georgethedragonslayer}}, {{U|Noleander}}, {{U|Onel5969}}, {{U|Owais Al Qarni}}, {{U|Somajyoti}}, {{U|Vinegarymass911}}, {{U|আফতাবুজ্জামান }}, and myself. Five of us are participants at WikiProject Bangladesh, so you can assume we are sufficiently conversant with Bengali to understand the sources.

:Another indicator of just how much BangladeshiEditorInSylhet still doesn't grasp notability is their !voting [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=BangladeshiEditorInSylhet&max=&startdate=&altname= record at AfD], where their recommendation has been consistent with the consensus outcome only 34.3% of the time. --Worldbruce (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::One issue that stood out to me was their retaliation to someone nominating their article for deletion. They nominated a handful of articles I created for deletion after I nominated one of their article. This is something they have done in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet#Notice with {{U|Somajyoti}}.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That was not a retaliation, it was simply a misunderstanding, if it was a retaliation, then even articles which were properly sourced would have been deleted, I also in some cases, nominated pages created by others before any dispute, i AfD'd pages for not being relavant or not being properly sourced, i am open to peaceful, discussions with good faith, i even withdrew a nomination when i was convinced that the page meets Wikipedia policies and plus those 3 pages of yours had some issues, not because of retaliation. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Is it just a coincidence that they happened at the same time? Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::See this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Glory School and College, even before 3 of your pages were nominated and after you nominated 1 of my pages recently, i nominated it because it had notability issues, so i nominated pages even before, so my intent was not to retaliate. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's a red herring and you know it. You nominated three of my pages right after I nominated your article. You had to look up my contribution to find those three articles. You made three deletion discussion within 20 minutes (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ejaz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Abul Kashem Mia) and two hours after I made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishore Kantho. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, I regularly visit WikiProject Bangladesh and i edit numerous pages, i found a link to a few pages and i found notability issues, I knew you nominated Kishore Kantho but i had already responded, Why would i retaliate? It is unnecessary, my intent was not to retaliate, plus you did not respond properly, i nominated an article for deletion, which had notability issues and the community agreed to delete it as there were no in-depth sources, that was before you nominated my articles for deletion, my intent was not to retaliate. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::As for Somajyoti, you nominated seven of their articles in about 30 minutes. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes i did in 30 minutes but not to retaliate, plus didn't Worldbruce and Chronos.Zx nominate several of my articles for deletion, you don't see a record of me nominating their pages for deletion even after nominations and this here, why? Because there are no notability issues in their pages that have been found as of 25 June 2025 and Aftabuzzaman as well, they nominated several of my pages for deletion, no AfD on their pages because there were no issues found, and even if there was, i always check pages and their sources before AfDs, i improve it if anything can be found, and if not, then AfD but because of Wikipedia's be bold policies, not for retaliation, wasnt there another ANI discussion about me and Somajyoti, Mehedi Abedin gave the solution and it was a misunderstanding between me and Somajyoti, not a AfD war or retaliation. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks @Worldbruce, for the ping. Yes, I’ve previously nominated several non-notable articles created by @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, mostly on local Schools, and none of those AfDs resulted in a "keep" outcome. Initially, I assumed that the user was new and would take time to understand Wiki notability guidelines and policies. But, it now appears that they have consistently ignored warnings and continue to create articles with no clear notability. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Actually since 2023 (when i first began), I did not understand much of Wikipedia and i will admit, initially when i first started editing, I did make some pages mostly school or biography related, that did not pass GNG, but i have tried and i have attempted to improve the quality of several pages and I create pages nowadays in a different way, I dont add every drop of information or try to add every source on the planet when I first create the page, I first add some information and when i have less issues and some time, i gradually improve those pages after i create it, I have not ignored warnings, yes i do have exams and assignments i need to work on but I also try to focus on other activities and i see the warnings and notifications, and plus a few of those local schools' pages did not meet notability, i in my first 12 months of editing did not fully understand notability, nowadays i do try to make some progress, i am not gonna be Albert Einstein in every field, i never try to ignore concerns or information, Exams and assignments, educational work cuts time but i still try, if you have concerns, please inform me in my talk page and what i need to improve, Thanks. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Having participated in some of the AfDs involving the creations of BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, I find it concerning that he is still not recognising his problems. Given the concerns raised by Worldbruce, I think we are at a point when a topic ban from Bangladesh broadly construed should be on the table. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Hello, it seems that you have joined this discussion. I do not think a ban from Bangladesh-related topics will be valid, first of all not all my contributions are flawed, i have stopped vandalism and created pages about essential Bangladeshi topics, also I find it surprising this is all in 2025, ill discuss on that later, again this is like shutting down a bakery because just two packets consisted of moldy bread, you don't shut it down, you complain to them directly as third parties may sometimes be biased, and give suggestions to the person who you believe has "issues" on how they can solve it, that is a example right there, i have been contributing since 2023 and undid vandalism in many cases and improved a huge number of pages and fixed errors and removed wrong information, added sources and improved topics, many of which are about my country, Bangladesh and i won't say I am the best but i did try to do a lot, a ban here is excessive, alternative options would be better then you have a contributor still on the platform who is undoing vandalism, creating pages (whom other contributors should improve the page afterwards to help the author or inform on talk page properly), and then nobody's workload is increased. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :"I find it concerning that he is still not recognising his problems" — I have recognized the issue, i know, i am trying to improve it and if i made mistakes, then Wikipedia is a site for collaboration, not for just blowing up someone's phone with AfD notifications and ANI threads, if one of my pages don't pass Notability or other issues, its not only my responsibility, it should be improved by other contributors too, if not, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Question: is there any sort of ideological or NPOV aspect to these disputes? Or is this solely about editorial choices (sourcing, notability, etc.)? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Notability is a issue that can simply be solved without a ban, just proper explanation and recommendations, notability is the issue here. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

As an AfD closer, I have observed the issues described above. I do not think a tban from Bangladesh would be appropriate, since the issue, at least as far as I see right now, is persistent trouble with notability, which is not inherent to any particular topic. Therefore, I propose that BangladeshiEditorInSylhet be restricted from creating new articles in mainspace. If they wish to create new articles, they must be submitted through the Articles for Creation process. Once BEIS has a good track record of drafts being accepted, this editing restriction can be lifted. -- asilvering (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:You know what, I actually agree, even though AfCs take time, Asilvering is correct here but what are the requirements for it to be lifted? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Temporary restriction from direct mainspace creation until a record of drafts being properly sourced and created in mainspace via AfC is not bad, i agree with Asilvering. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Since early May the editor Grayfell has been removing a huge amount of content and reliable sources from articles such as White Mexicans,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1289519048&oldid=1289516904][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1291730735&oldid=1291120881][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296265205&oldid=1296007224] Mexicans,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1292098944&oldid=1290599127] White Latin Americans[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=1293853765&oldid=1292151238] , White People[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296622593&oldid=1295519827] etc. on a very selective manner, targetting specifically sources related to European ancestry, usually vaguely claiming that such content is SYNTH, OR, Primary or unverifiable when it isn't. Examples of this are:

• Here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291123202] tagged a source that textually states[https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] that the population of western Mexico "resemble the northern Spanish people -tall, well built, often with blue eyes...'"' because according to him it doesn't mention the term White''
• Here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296238393] Grayfell removed a large scale study by the University College London source because it isn't only about Mexico and is a primary source but let another source (LatinoBarometro) stay in there despite being about multiple countries (and being an actual primary source).
• Here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1291730735&oldid=1291725307] Grayfell removed a field survey that used the presence of blond hair to classify a Mexican as White arguing that it was a blatant misrepresentation of the source when it can be easily verified here [https://es.scribd.com/document/754471181/villarreal-2010-stratification-by-skin-color-in-contemporary-mexico] in the page 19 (he also claims that its a primary source when it isn't, (the American Sociological Association is retelling field research carried out by Mexico's MIT panel years earlier).
• In the article of White Mexicans[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296265205&oldid=1296262614] and White people[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296621945&oldid=1296617553] he removes the results of surveys carried out by Mexico's government claiming that the phrasing is OR, SYNTH etc. when it couldn't be more literal, even when such phrasing was accepted by him and is present in the article of Mexico.
• When he abandoned the discussion in the talk page of the article of Mexico and I reached a consensus with other editors[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1286655422] he re-appeared only to revert and start the discussion all over again[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1286655422], dismissing multiple sources with talking points such as that a person is described as being of European appeareance does not mean that the person has European ancestry[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1275587551] (in that discussion he has been called out by other editors for being difficult to work with[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1277017958&oldid=1277017029]).
• Grayfell also claims government produced data has to be removed because they are primary sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1296267309&oldid=1296264221][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296621945&oldid=1296617553] (I'm certain that to start removing official governmental from Wikipedia because they're primary sources would have a very negative impact on the site as a whole).
• Despite repeatedly dismissing sources on the pretense of them being primary or tertiary he removed 4 secondary sources from the article of White People [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296622348&oldid=1296621945].
• He claims that the pie chart in the source of Encyclopedia Brittanica cannot be used to state that 31% of Mexico's population are "other" ethnic groups on which European ancestry is significant despite such statement appearing in source because the pie chart says 31% "other" but he has no such problem when it comes to the World Factbook which says that 10% of Mexico's population are other[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=1293516854] (months earlier he understood what Encyclopedia Brittanica was saying as he added himself that White Mexicans are about one third of the population to the infobox[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1271802421&oldid=1271801282] but then started claiming that he didn't read the source well).
• Has repeatedly removed tables related to blood groups in Mexico claiming them to be SYNTH and OR[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1289519048&oldid=1289518827] when literally ever single sentence used in the article appears in source (explained with extreme detail here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1274726410&oldid=1274594149]).
• Days ago he added a failed verification tag to a source because it doesn't seem to support that the term "light skinned Mexican" is commonly used[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296270013&oldid=1296268180] even though by now he is undeniably well aware that such term is very commonly used and earlier the same day he removed multiple sources that use it right before tagging that source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1296247857&oldid=1296238393].

There's even more edits by him that are like this, but I think this gives a good idea of the way this editor is acting, when confronted about any of this on talk pages he will ignore the discussions and move onto other articles to do the same contested edits and more, if one tries to edit those articles he reverts them claiming OR, SYNTH etc. or that an editor does not have consensus (as if his edits that remove a huge amount of sources had consensus or didn't needed to be discussed to begin with). I've written on Grayfell's talk page twice but he closes/deletes[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrayfell&diff=1296621875&oldid=1296618857][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrayfell&diff=1291221222&oldid=1291219657] my messages so it seems this venue is needed. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|Notification process is processed.}}

:I've issued Grayfell the notification about this discussion on their talk page - please remember to do so next time. Not going to comment on their conduct. » Gommeh (he/him) 00:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::GommehI did so nearly at the same time as you, now there's a duplicate notice in there, thank you for your attention regardless. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Gommeh, it's disruptive to snipe ANI posts notifications. You didn't wait 100 seconds after the post before sniping and complaining. Wait a few minutes. 12.75.115.75 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Must not have seen the time lmao » Gommeh (he/him) 01:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The timestamps are on the posts. Maybe it was 120 seconds instead of 100. You didn't contribute anything, you simply sniped a warning and walked away. Not constructive, disruptive. 12.75.115.78 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It takes way less time than that to go to their talk page and copy paste the template but point taken. I'd expect it to be done in 30-45secs max since it has to be done soon after. » Gommeh (he/him) 02:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:This has been simmering for a while. In my opinion, this is filibustering by Pob3qu3 to preserve their preferred changes, and I don't accept that Pob3qu3's summary of these edits is accurate.

:Here's my brief summary: In the last few months I've tried to clean-up these articles. There is a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH etc. related to this topic. One problem here is that some of this content is/was superficially supported by sources (at a glance) but some of if has been totally unsupported. Sources are also interwoven and selectively chosen, which makes untangling this a chore. These dense text-wads are usually copy/pasted across multiple articles without regard for context or due weight. Multiple times I have found some bit of wording which was poorly supported by a source and thought 'didn't I already remove this?' only to realize it was at some other article.

:I have spent months trying to explain the issues with these changes, but Pob3qu3 either doesn't understand what I've been saying or chooses not to accept it. In January I started this: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 53#White Mexicans and blood type. I thought focusing on a single issue would be helpful, but this was a mistake. It dragged on far, far, far too long, and I can't reasonably expect anyone to read the whole thing, but my interpretation is that there was, at least, broad consensus for some sort of change. I was certainly not the only editor to see problems with Pob3qu3's understanding of Wikipedia's policies. In response, Pob3qu3 filed a spurious retaliatory SPI against me and {{Their|Pob3qu3}} other apparent opponents. As far as I can tell, they have not acknowledged how inappropriate that was, much less apologized. In February, {{U|Tiggerjay}} started this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Pob3qu3 disruptive editing via OR/SYNTH against consensus which lead to more filibustering and CIVILPOV.

:There is also a WP:FRINGE issue. It appears that all of Pob3qu3's edits have been related to race and ethnicity in Mexico. Most of these edits have been related to what percentage of Mexico's population is "White". Pob3qu3 is willing to disparaged or editorialized some sources to death, sometimes without sources at all ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=839051161 as one of many examples]). Other sources, no matter how flimsy or passing, are included in excessive detail, again with unsupported editorializing and commentary ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=839051697 a later edit from the same batch]). Parts of these edits have lingered in the article for years, and even when sourced, the wording is often adjusted without apparent regard for those sources. Obviously, this is a mess. Occasionally other editors have tried to clean this mess up,([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=982376827&oldid=982373352 one arbitrary example]) but Pob3qu3 has restored their preferred wording, citing 'consensus' or similar. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Your reply reads as if there hasn't been discussion and changes in the recent months related to these points when there has been newer discussions and consensus, at times with the participation of other editors even, like on the article of Mexico. One of the biggest issues here is that you prefer to remove completely reliable sources instead of discussing rewordings/rephrasings (it is clear by now that I do not oppose rephrasings that are closer to source or that reduce editorializing), at times you've made proposals which I've told you are good but then you never talk about them again and instead keep removing reliable sources. The SPI was dismissed for being a content dispute, not sure what else to say about this as many SPIs are filled in the midst of severe content disputes, you probably could go to the SPI noticeboard and find examples of this right now. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd propose indefinitely topic banning Pob3qu3 from racial topics. It's astonishing that editors put up with the tendentious arguments in the "Contentious" discussion they linked. Pob3qu3 says they reached consensus with other editors, but I'm instead seeing other editors raise serious issues with Pob3qu3's proposal leading to no consensus at all in February. Then, in April, one other editor joined and agreed with Pob3qu3, at which point the proposal was inserted into the article. It's not unreasonable to revert and restart discussion in a situation like that, and the diff is misleadingly presented here. I find others to be misleading as well. In looking into this, the verbosity of both Pob3qu3 and Grayfell was a barrier to understanding, so I'd urge both editors not to bludgeon this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Firefangledfeathers did you read the discussion carefully? as the February-April discussion progressed everybody proposed and was ok with the different paragraph proposals[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#Contentious] except Grayfell, in fact he was the only one being called out by other editors for being uncooperative [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1277842942&oldid=1277827034][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1277017958&oldid=1277017029]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That was an exhausting read. Looks like FF counted correctly, One editor agreed with you. You linked to both comments that agree. They are both from the same person. 12.75.115.75 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well given that there was 4 active editors in the discussion, (me, Grayfell and other two) that amounts to something doesn't it? Also, Even if only one called out his uncooperative behavior directly all editors except Grayfell were ok with the proposed additions to the article. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Firefangledfeathers, I hesitate to ask, but have you had a look at WP:NORN#White Mexicans and blood type? I'm fairly sure that's the noticeboard report @Johnuniq refers to below. Yes, it's still about racial topics, but... -- asilvering (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It seems you didn't link to the actual report, but in the talk page of White Mexicans there's currently a discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Mexicans#Table_of_blood_types_and_general_SYNTH_issues] focused on sources realted to blood groups, as that one progressed, issues with Grayfell similar to those observed in the article of Mexico arose, as simply every text proposal was SYNTH to him, it got to the point that I had to make an extremely literal and detailed explanation to him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1274726410&oldid=1274594149] even giving him the page and paragraph number for each sentence for him to leave the tables on the article until he returned to remove them months later still claiming it to be SYNTH[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=1289519048&oldid=1289518827]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Pob3qu3, please do not assume intent of other editors. I linked precisely where I meant to. -- asilvering (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Pob3qu3's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Pob3qu3-20250622050300-12.75.115.75-20250622044800 reply to me above] is a neat illustration of the problem for those who want quick insight.

1. Pob3qu3 says "all editors except Grayfell were ok with the proposed additions"
2. {{u|Johnuniq}}'s last two comments in the February–April discussion were warnings to Pob3qu3 about staying on-topic and the very clear "Do not edit the article with anything concerning Mexican ethnic composition unless there is a positive prior consensus." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Johnuniq-20250212053600-Pob3qu3-20250212050000 comment 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Johnuniq-20250213024600-Pob3qu3-20250213023800 comment 2])
3. {{u|Tiggerjay}}'s last two comments in the discussion were both expressing skepticism that sources discussing about skin-color-based discrimination correlate exactly with estimates of racial population numbers ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Tiggerjay-20250219044100-Pob3qu3-20250218083100.comment 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Tiggerjay-20250219155800-Pob3qu3-20250219085400 comment 2]). TJ had gone to great lengths to be clear that their silence afterward should not be taken as agreement: {{tqd|"understand that my silence is NOT to be interpreted as agreement or consent. As such, do not consider my absence from conversations consent, but rather more of a WP:DFTT and WP:BAIT mitigation"}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pob3qu3#c-Tiggerjay-20250212061200-Blanket_Reply user talk comment]).
4. {{u|Remsense}}'s last few comments were exhortations to follow the sources, ending with the warning to {{tqd|"Just say what sources say, and don't go out of your way to make other points if they're not themselves expressly stated by sources. If the sources don't support a specific percentage, don't add one implicitly. That's tendentious."}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Remsense-20250302234600-Pob3qu3-20250302234200 comment])
5. {{u|Davemc0}} did a commendable amount of crafting compromise proposals and grew evidently frustrated with the length of the discussion, blaming Grayfell in particular. They dropped out with support for their last proposal and advice for Pob3qu3: {{tqd|"when your patience wears thin you try to pull in fresh opinions, such as at WP:DRN"}}. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexico#c-Davemc0-20250227010500-Grayfell-20250223003600 comment]). Davemc0's proposal was completely different from the content Pob3qu3 eventually added to the article, so there's no reason to assume Davemc0 was "ok with the proposed additions". (see collapsed comparison below)
6. {{u|Vers2333}} was the only one who was actually ok with the proposal. Vers2333 joined the discussion on April 20 to support Pob3qu3's changes, and Pob3qu3 inserted them a day later.

{{ctop|Collapsed comparison of versions}}

Dacemc0's version: {{tqb|White Mexicans are another major ethnic group in the country; and according to the 2020 census, Afro-Mexicans comprised 2% of Mexico's population, and Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.Studies in 2017 and 2022 by the Mexican Institute of Geography and Statistics were framed in terms of skin tone, rather than race. In the 2022 study, Mexican adults self-report skin tone as 29.2% having light, 49.7% having medium, and 21.1% having dark tones.}}

Pob3qu3's version: {{tqb|Skin color surveys have been used to estimate the number of White Mexicans in the country (a method that is commonly used in latin america to estimate the White ethnicity), according to 2017 and 2022 surveys by Mexico's Council to Prevent Discrimination 28-29% of Mexican people identified with light skin tones, more than 40% did so in a 2010 survey. Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 31% of Mexico's population are other ethnic groups of which White Mexicans are a significant component. Asians and Middle Easterners represent around 1% of the population each.}}

{{cbot}}

Pob3qu3 deeply misrepresented the discussion, and this came after I expressed concerns about the initial diffs being misrepresented. This editor is abusing ANI after they abused SPI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Firefangledfeathers Actually the first venue on which I tried to open this complaint was DRN, but turns out its limited to 2000 characters so it wasn't possible for me to make this case there. On my previous reply, I specified "active editors" or what would be editors that activelly participed on the discussion, Johnuniq and Remsense were not active on it, Tiggerjay was more active on the discussion (albeit left early) and his posture is more complex as he claimed that the proposed paragraph was fine as long as it was specified that it was physicial appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1276492966&oldid=1276345240], to which I replied that it was no issue because Mexico's government ethnographic research is based on physical appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276492966], then on his final comment he talked about how the article of White Mexicans described them as being people of European ancestry, not people of European appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276517329], to which I replied that I was ok with changing the definition of White Mexicans on their article to Mexicans of European appeareance[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=next&oldid=1276564941] (I still want to do this change), so I think it can be said that if we count Tiggerjay, there was actually 4 editors favouring the paragraph additions in one shape or form (me, Davemc0, Vers2333, and Tiggerjay) vs 1 (Grayfell). Regarding the differences between Davemc0 and my version, that's actually Vers2333 version which I added because he was the last person to make a proposal (and it isn't that different of the other versions). Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Firefangledfeathers Also, you've been focusing only on a tiny part of the problem (the discussion in the talk page of Mexico) what about all other edits and behaviors of Grayfell such as mass removal of sources and abandoning discussions on multiple talk pages (and even erasing my comments from his talk page) that I pointed out at the start of my complaint? Don't those warrant filling a report?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Based on their past talk page behavior, Pob3qu3 will drag this on indefinitely, if they are allowed to.

::In one of Pob3qu3's comments they link above, they say "{{tq|in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry}}". I think this is useful as an example of the quality of editing here. This statement is not factually or logically correct. I'm not convinced it was even all that relevant to the discussion. The proposed phrase "Mexicans of European appearance" is just a clunky and euphemistic way of saying 'White Mexicans'. As far as I can tell, reliable sources do not use phrase "Mexicans of European appearance" at all, much less define what that actually means in a usable way. This is a pseudo-compromise. Trying to tweak the wording cannot bypass the much deeper source and OR issues, and this is another example of where it would make these problems worse.

::WP:USERTALKSTOP is not a valid justification for bringing my behavior to this noticeboard. I have already explained the problems with these edits multiple times on multiple pages in excruciating detail. Demanding that I re-re-re-explain these issues is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|I have already explained the problems with these edits multiple times on multiple pages in excruciating detail}} Most of the examples on my report haven't been explained at all, even when I asked you directly to do so in the talk pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Latin_Americans&diff=1296421659&oldid=1296236103][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhite_Mexicans&diff=1296275605&oldid=1296268419], and in the case of the ones you explain your explanations are like what you just said in your last reply about how the statement "in order to have an European physical appeareance you must have European ancestry is not factually or logically correct", how isn't it factually or logically correct that a person of European appeareance has European ancestry? If I'm dragging or better said, contesting your edits is because the reasonings you are using to remove several reliable sources are disconcerting to be honest. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Even though he is in the midst of a discussion here on ANI, Grayfell has moved on to continue the mass removal reliable sources/text from other articles, this time in the article of Mexicans[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296885250&oldid=1295006093], the behavior he exhibits here is similar to how he would ignore my questions on talk page discussions and continue removing sources/texts from articles. As can be seen various of his edits are direct reincidencies of points for which he was reported, such as the removal of text regarding blood type distribution[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296885250&oldid=1296884937] and the removal of Encyclopedia Brittanica and ethnic discrimination surveys performed by Mexico's government[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296880214&oldid=1296879969] (that its "editorializing" is not really a valid argument for their removal, as a more literal rephrasing of those sources had already been agreed upon), regarding those governmental surveys in particular, in the previous diff and in the article of White People[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296621945&oldid=1296617553] a dynamic can be seen on which Grayfell does not remove these sources completely from the article, but removes their results only (an example of the more literal phrasing of these sources that I talk about appears there), I've commented to him that this is rather odd[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1296634290] but he hasn't said anything about it. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:VNOT, the simple fact that a source exists for something doesn't necessarily guarantee inclusion. And at least at a glance, the arguments made here (that eg. the source doesn't mention the term "white" and its usage is therefore WP:SYNTH / WP:OR, or that these are primary sources that are being misused) are reasonable ones. (Also, at a glance, Pob3qu3 was using opinion pieces for statements of fact in the article voice, which is generally inappropriate even before the risk of WP:SYNTH - eg. an opinion piece from El Universal is used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289525073&oldid=1289269188&title=Mexico here] as a source for the statement that seems to be at the core of the dispute.) And Pob3qu3 is clearly misrepresenting the consensus - going over the discussion here, I see Tiggerjay, Grayfell, and Johnuniq all raising core concerns with the proposed additions that don't seem to have been really addressed. Beyond that, if you feel that there's a consensus, the thing to do is to take a concrete proposal and start an WP:RFC on it, or identify the locus of dispute and hold an RFC on that. There's certainly not a clear-cut enough consensus to rush to WP:ANI just because someone disagrees, anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Aquillion do you think that tagging this source[https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&id=XPl8c4XINgoC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=well+built] because it doesn't mention the term White like Grayfell did[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291123202] was reasonable or were you talking about another of the events included on my initial report?. Also the opinion piece and other press sources were used because they speak about the social dynamics the government surveys were documenting, press sources are one of the best resource for this I think. It has to noted that since then I made a proposal using another governmental source to back that statement and Grayfell rejected it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1294485154] (Later I even made a proposal without using Encyclopedia Brittanica and he rejected it too[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico&diff=prev&oldid=1295013780]), to later on admit that the contested statement has always been obvious[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1295817184&oldid=1295013780]. Johnuniq didn't really participate on the discussion and I already elaborated in deep about Tiggerjay concerns[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1296850503]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, let's look at that tag. The source is from 1963 (which does matter), the ISBN was wrong, and it didn't appear to be directly supporting the attached claim. I tagged it so someone with access to that specific edition of that source can verify it. The source is still in the article, just with more context.

:::There are so many issues like this throughout the topic.

:::As for press sources being the best, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:EDITORIALIZING, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS are all important on Wikipedia. We have been over this. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You went to tag that source on other articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&diff=1296582720&oldid=1296582260] after even after I showed you a direct citation to it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1291270229], in fact, its still tagged (similarly to what you do to the American Sociological Association source, which you keep tagging[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans&diff=1296884937&oldid=1296884186] even after I showed you a direct link to it[https://es.scribd.com/document/754471181/villarreal-2010-stratification-by-skin-color-in-contemporary-mexico] and I explained how it is not a primary source). Going on more detail regarding the press sources, they are one of the best sources to document social phenomena, mainstream usage of terms aswell as social dynamics. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can't believe this is still going on more than FOUR MONTHS after we tried to resolve it! As you summarized, I jumped in and tried to help in mid-late February. We DID have a consensus on about Feb. 14. I believe it was me, Tiggerjay, and Pob3qu3 in favor of a certain version, and then Grayfell opposed. This continued with proposed edit after proposed edit for the next two-ish weeks, and on Feb. 27 Grayfell finally broke me and I checked out.

:I just scanned through Talk:Mexico again, and Pob3qu3 has continued for all these months to put in sincere work to make an acceptable and positive contribution to the article. He had a few proposals with WP:SYNTH or WP:CALC problems that needed to be corrected, but I found that he was surprisingly willing to learn, adapt, and accommodate others' feedback. Grayfell has come at this differently. He's a more experienced editor. He has much stronger and more academic beliefs about race, ethnicity, and skin color, and the interplay between them. He clearly doesn't want any of Pob3qu3's or others' changes to go into these articles until he finds them absolutely flawless. And he has a great deal of energy for critiquing / criticizing others' proposed edits, while somehow not having energy to improve them. Specifically, in my perusal of the sordid Talk:Mexico page I find 52 comments by Grayfell. I classify these as follows: Complaint / criticism: 30; Requests that others make changes or find more sources: 12; Arguments or procedural discussion: 9; Proposed contributions: 1.

:While he expects Pob3qu3 to do all the work to make an edit that is perfect in Grayfell's eyes, Grayfell (from what little I've read) does plenty of edits in this same mildly contentious topic space, but without any collaboration. This feels very unfair. I have the strong sense that Grayfell is behaving like the older child with a sharp pin of criticism. Every time Pob3qu3 works hard to blow up a balloon and present it for acceptance, Grayfell trivially pops it with his pin and sends him back to start all over again, when instead he could've put in a little bit of effort and actually helped reshape the balloon into something more acceptable to him.

:I'm a little rusty on my WP policies. I really don't know what the solution is, except for Grayfell to complain less and help more. Maybe a TBAN on race for six months, with the exception that he be allowed to contribute proposed changes on a talk page, but not make other talk page comments. Davemc0 (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I looked at the issue following a report at a noticeboard. I tried to get the participants to focus on a single contested assertion so that the claim and its source could be evaluated. Despite reading several walls of text, I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source. From what I saw, Grayfell was the only editor capable of understanding my request. It's pretty simple: what goes in an article has to be verifiable, so provide a source that directly supports the proposed text. In the hour that I spent trying to find a needle in the talk-page haystack, the very few concrete assertions I found were not supported by the provided source. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Davemc0 proposal, don't know if from the topic of race as a whole as he has made various comments that clash with the content of the article of White people itself, like Devemc0 says, Grayfell has very academic/personal views of race as he states that a definition of White people does not exist and cannot ever exist[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1275587551&oldid=1275585092] while the article of White people states that its generally agreed to be applied to people with predominant European ancestry (he has inserted this view into the article of White Mexicans [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296247857]) but a ban (or block) at least from race/ethnicity topics related to Mexico for Grayfell is appropriate. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This is another distraction from the fundamental point. Rather than post diffs of someone commenting in a wasteland talk page, please post a link to a straightforward proposed change with supporting source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Johnuniq three different users made proposals with sources (and other was ok with them as long as it was stated that was based on appeareance/physical traits) in the Mexico talk page and you didn't like any?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please post a link to a straightforward proposed change with supporting source. As requested before, please do not talk about anything else such as "three different users" or "didn't like any". Comments that are padded out with distractions add up to impenetrable walls of text. Focus on article content. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Johnuniq you are overlooking that a little ago Grayfell acknowledged that the contested text (whose addition was one of the main reasons behind the original conflict, other being the removal Encyclopedia Brittanica) has always been obvious[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1295817184&oldid=1295013780], in other words, for months he was arguing, denouncing SYNTH/OR and demanding/rejecting multiple sources for a piece of text that Grayfell all along knew was obvious, no straightforward change with a supported source was ever going to convince him, in fact even after he admited that the text is obvious he is not convinced of its addition yet. Grayfell's tendency to accusse that a piece of text/source he dislikes is SYNTH/OR/unverified etc. infinitely no matter what one presents or does to back it up when he knows the text/source is actually ok is a common denominator on this conflict and likely on other edit conflicts he's gotten into on Wikipedia. Pob3qu3 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Pob3qu3 is badly misrepresenting my words and actions here. There is one point in particular that I want to address: At no point did I say that "a definition of White people does not exist and cannot ever exist". I said that no universal definition of "White people" can exist. There are many definitions of white people, but many of these sources don't bother defining it at all. Picking a source that mentions (often in passing) European ancestry, or arbitrarily light skin tone, and then using that to make simplistic claims about "White people" is textbook WP:SYNTH. That is one of the core issues here, and I'm not sure why having an "academic view of race" is supposed to be a bad thing.

::::::::As for the proposal, yet gain, the proposed source doesn't support the proposed wording. My 'acknowledgement' is just another attempt to explain this fundamental problem. In order to cite that source at all, the wording had to become so vague it was pointless filler language that stated the obvious. This is a waste of a source and a waste of the reader's time. Just like these talk pages, the articles do not need more pointless filler. Grayfell (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You are once again saying simultaneously that a source doesn't support the proposed text and that the proposed text is obvious, don't you see the contradiction there? also, even on instances on which I've copied text that outright appears on the article of Mexico (this is, without the proposed/disputed text on it) like in here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=prev&oldid=1296262430] you keep removing it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Mexicans&diff=next&oldid=1296262614]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Pob3qu3, @Johnuniq isn't "overlooking" anything. He has a very clear request: post a link to a straightforward proposed change with a supporting source. Don't post anything else. Just that. -- asilvering (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think ANI is not really to discuss content to such extent or is it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Truly astonishing that you have been accused of filibustering, I can't imagine why. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{tq|Actually the first venue on which I tried to open this complaint was DRN, but turns out its limited to 2000 characters so it wasn't possible for me to make this case there. }} {{u|Pob3qu3}}, I think this should have triggered a moment of self-reflection. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Since a couple of weeks ago I realized that to bring this issue to a noticeboard was likely going to be needed but I was unsure on which would be the best one. Looking at the fact that even after being reported here Grayfell continued with the removing/tagging of sources I think this was the best course of action. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::We are not going to have a discussion about content here but that does not rule out posting a link. The issue is that above I wrote "I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source". Your options are to post a link, or to decline, or to state that no link is available because there is no straightforward proposal with source. Declining would indicate an unwillingness or inability to collaborate and that should have consequences because litigating an issue (what issue!?) for an extended period while being unable to follow simple advice would be highly disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::The thing is, when you say {{tq|"I still have not seen a straightforward proposal with source"}} you are being being highly subjective and holding an opinion that is not shared by most editors that participated in the discussion. Among the proposals in the talk page there were various about skin color stating what given percentage of Mexicans identified with light skin colors, and the source that states so is there too, like outright there (here are direct diffs so I don't have to copy-paste each here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1275639548&oldid=1275639541][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMexico&diff=1286454439&oldid=1286445968]), if those still doesn't look like straighforward proposals to you I don't know what would, they look like an straightforward proposals to me and to the other editors that participated (except Grayfell). Pob3qu3 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The first proposal is above the signature found by searching for "05:22, 14 February 2025" at Talk:Mexico#Contentious (permalink). The discussion following the proposal shows a lot of doubt with people pointing out that the document was not a census, and that certain text in the proposal was not verified in the source. I was hoping for something more straightforward and which did not require an hour's work to decipher. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{U|Pob3qu3}}, you seem to have missed the point of Asilvering's post (either that or I have misinterpreted it). It is that you should have reflected on the fact that you are far too verbose. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=WP:BOOMERANG|1=OP /64 blocked a month for block evasion by ScottishFinnishRadish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I don't understand what a guy named Barry Wom has a problem with me when I simply want to contribute to Wikipedia. My crime according to that guy: including sources in the two cited articles because it is block evasion. There must be something wrong here. If this guy thinks everyone who edits Wikipedia is evading blocks, then {{personal attack removed}}. Please take action because I don't understand what's going on.--2800:484:7385:3F0:F06B:6AED:EB75:F6A8 (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I suggest you strike "he's not right in the head", as it is a personal attack. And you didn't notify them of this discussion, which is required, nor have you bothered to discuss this matter with them on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:: One thing, though, I'd like to hear from User:Barry Wom about reverting edits with "block evasion", because I can't see the block that's being evaded, and the edits are clearly good faith otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Seems to be a frequent edit summary they use for IP editors, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Burton%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1296459869 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Soviet_tank_factories&diff=prev&oldid=1296385815 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Godfather_characters&diff=prev&oldid=1296384489 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Burton%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1296334872 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman_in_film&diff=prev&oldid=1296334825 5] Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Yes, but all for IPs from the same area, which is why I'm interested in who the blocked editor is; I can't see any previous blocks on those IP ranges. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It doesn't matter if it's from a blocked/banned user. What's wrong with the blocked person or someone else editing something for good? 2800:484:7385:3F0:785A:21A7:63AB:BC7F (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Because block evasion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, thus it very much does matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've blocked a month for block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Long-term sockpuppeting from an editor who has been evading blocks for over eight years. Their most recently used IP range was blocked a month ago by {{ping|Daniel Case}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1290593817 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia] Barry Wom (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I should probably identify the blocked LTA user here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JeanCast%C3%AC/Archive This account] was created in 2023, but they have been tracked back as far as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tornatore2007 this account] from 2017. Their first language is Spanish and they've also been indefinitely blocked from the Spanish Wiki. Barry Wom (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You're just like that guy. I think you're even worse. And I'll tell you why: looking at that whole sock-puppet history, it's clear that guy was being uncooperative, but neither are you with your actions. Why sabotage what others do? Another one who starts saying "violation of Wikipedia policies"; as if that would lead to jail. Finally, I see that you have, I don't know if I should call it xenophobia, toward people who speak Spanish, and it's also clear that you sow a lot of intrigue. 2800:484:7385:3F0:35CA:2F2E:9:A3BB (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

By User:Discussthis at Special:Diff/1294635970, "Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning". I can't block myself because I'm involved. Rusalkii (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can't find an edit on this project where Discussthis issues an actual legal warning, at least there is nothing posted to a User talk page. I know I have a different standard for LT than other admins but I'm not sure this deserves a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::The meaning of the phrase "legally warned" here is not clear. It may just possibly be intended to mean "warned under Wikipedia rules" rather than a reference to external laws or legal proceedings. I agree that it is necessary for Discussthis to clarify the meaning. However, I am frankly more troubled that 100% of Discussthis's edits over 18 months on Wikipedia are focused on this one article, invariably taking a negative view of the article subject and anyone who agrees with her. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|Article subject has been legally warned already against making false claims and editors may want to heed warning.}}

:::That sounds like a legal threat to me. It would also be good to know what connection @Discussthis has to subject of the article, since they know that Atherton has been legally warned. It is also a WP:SPA by definition. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. @Discussthis please clarify your connection to the article's subject. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've directly asked them for comment on their talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I was going to wait until after I got over my jet lag to start this, but so many lines have been crossed that I can no longer wait. I wrote this topic while waiting for a connection flight, so please forgive its rushed structure. For context, this dispute revolves around WP:AIRSPECS, a 20+ year old consensus regarding how aircraft specifications are displayed (specifically stating that only one variant should be covered in the specs section of each article) in articles that was not followed on about a few dozen airliner articles. When this was pointed out (I believe this is where it started), I began fixing the articles in question ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A350&diff=prev&oldid=1284657946 Airbus A350], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_707&diff=prev&oldid=1292832117 Boeing 707], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_720&diff=prev&oldid=1293261156 Boeing 720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_717&diff=prev&oldid=1293266254 Boeing 717], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_727&diff=prev&oldid=1293270094 Boeing 727], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737&diff=prev&oldid=1293274711 Boeing 737], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737_Classic&diff=prev&oldid=1293300483 Boeing 737 Classic], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737_Next_Generation&diff=prev&oldid=1293310979 Boeing 737 Next Generation], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1294170194 Boeing 777] are the articles I remember), but was met with extreme backlash by several editors who preferred the old versions despite the long-standing consensus. Several discussions were started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) (including an RfC), and after a while I tagged as many non-compliant articles as I could find with Template:Overly detailed.

Instead, I'm bringing this here to discuss the behavior of several editors; {{u|Planeandaquariumgeek}} and {{u|Electricmemory}}. Planeandaquariumgeek was one of several editors to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737?diff=prev&oldid=1294691956 restore the AIRSPECS-violating version of the Boeing 737 article's specs section], which I promptly reverted. The following week, they started the Removing airliner specifications for no reason discussion on my talk page. A few days later, after another editor mass-reverted my edits, Planeandaquariumgeek created an attack page in said user's userpage. I brought this up to {{u|The Bushranger}}, who nominated the page under WP:G10.

Fast forward to today, and Electricmemory enters the mix and things start moving fast. In chronological order:

• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737_MAX&diff=prev&oldid=1296763754 removes the maintenance tag from Boeing 737 MAX], claiming the discussion ended with no consensus,
• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZLEA&diff=1296764316&oldid=1295965133 makes three posts on my talk page], in which they say {{tq|AIRSPECS and whatever can go to hell.}} and {{tq|I don't give a flying fuck about some style guide written twenty years ago that you steadfastly stand by despite it plainly being wrong...}},
• Planeandaquariumgeek [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZLEA&diff=1296764841&oldid=1296764316 posts two replies cheering them on], one with a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296764801 personal attack],
• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296765000 posts another reply on my talk page] (nothing too egregious),
• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737&diff=prev&oldid=1296765311 reverts the Boeing 737 article's specs section],
• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296765425 posts another reply to my talk page] (nothing too egregious),
• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)&diff=prev&oldid=1296766235 performs an involved close of the RfC],
• Planeandaquariumgeek [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296767200 posts another reply to my talk page] (nothing too egregious),
• Electricmemory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=next&oldid=1296767200 posts another reply to my talk page] (nothing too egregious),
• I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=next&oldid=1296767343 reply to Electricmemory],
• I notice Electricmemory's involved close and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)&diff=prev&oldid=1296772334 revert it],
• I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=next&oldid=1296771442 reply again to Electricmemory, voicing my intention to bring the matter here at a later time],
• Planeandaquariumgeek [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)&diff=next&oldid=1296772334 posts this bizarre rant at WP:AIRMOS about including detailed specs about every single variant on aircraft articles],
• I finally notice Planeandaquariumgeek's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296764801 personal attack] and come here.

This series of events indicates to me that these two editors share a mindset of not only ignoring, but blatantly rejecting consensus, and patterns of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. - ZLEA _T\^C 10:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Without comment on the rest of the issue, I want to point out that project-specific style guides can only be viewed as recommendations, not rules. See WP:ADVICEPAGE. So a "violation" of a style guide is not a basis to revert an edit. {{tqq|However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.}} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::While true, they're still best-purposes guides - and the discussion around this has been absolutely atrocious, with the side wanting to change the discussion (which is legit) starting with bad faith from the start (which isn't) and with what looks like off-wiki collaboration due to numerous accounts that had been idle for years (at least one since 2011!) suddenly appearing in the discussion to back up the point. This is just the unfortunate end of a disgusting process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::So to be clear I have nothing to do with off-wiki collaboration. I’m a introverted autistic teenager I don’t know nearly enough people to do that. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It's obvious you came by the discussion in good faith. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for multiple other participants in that mess. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|rsjaffe}} While I see what you're getting at, it seems most the part you quoted from WP:ADVICEPAGE is intended for such pages that ask users to ignore a wider consensus. As far as I'm aware, WP:AIRSPECS does not attempt to ignore or override such a consensus, but please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the {{tq|Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay}} part, WP:CONLEVEL states that {{tq|WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, template documentation pages, and essays have not gone through the policy and guideline proposal process and may or may not represent a broad community consensus.}} I had assumed that a style guide followed for 20+ years and does not violate any wider consensus would constitute a valid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::By saying "may or may not represent..." they are saying that absent an RfC, these cannot be relied upon to be a broad community consensus. Duration is not listed as a factor in it representing consensus. The only factor establishing broad community consensus is having it go through the policy and guideline proposal process. As The Bushranger stated above, it still serves as a best-purpose guide. However, it isn't the "law", unlike the WP:MOS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:So, you’re accusing me of making an attack page and then you come down here and rip my character to shreds. Got it, not. Also citing me telling another Wikipedian to fix a problem as an attack is insanity. I’m not gonna do this with you quite frankly.Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|Also citing me telling another Wikipedian to fix a problem}} I assume you're referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296764801 this edit]. Which isn't {{tqq|insanity}}, it's absolutely a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::First of all, no. 2nd of all you need to shut your mouth. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Calling someone a moron is certainly a personal attack. And this comment is also not civil. Apologizing and continuing the discussion politely is the correct move here. LordDiscord (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Take this to the arbitration committee for all I care, I couldnt give any less of a flying fucking fuck. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::It won't require ARBCOM. It just requires the first admin to deal your upcoming indef block. See ya. Ravenswing 20:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, so I don’t think blocking anyone is needed. What I do think is needed is some kind of mediation. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You have proven numerous times that you cannot be trusted to conduct yourself civilly, so forgive me for not trusting that you would suddenly conduct yourself in any kind of mediation. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Planeandaquariumgeek certainly was not being civil. I don’t see Electricmemory ignoring consensus or being disruptive – they [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZLEA#c-Electricmemory-20250622040400-Planeandaquariumgeek-20250622040200 responded to] Planeandaquariumgeek and said “Despite my opinion on this I know better than to just revert everything immediately”. LordDiscord (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would call [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)&diff=prev&oldid=1296766235 performing a close on an RfC] after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737&diff=prev&oldid=1296765311 reverting one of the edits related to it] with an edit summary clearly indicating they have taken a side in the dispute (not to mention numerous posts on one of the involved party's talk pages doubling down on such) to be a highly disruptive case of WP:INVOLVED. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:There was no consensus to begin with as you are insinuating under WP:CON and you leaving messages on my talk pages forcing through your changes is the exact kind of egregious violations that you're committing right now. This kind of Goebbelsian behaviour is apalling and reverting edits made by hundreds of contributors over the years smacks of arrogance. Long story short, unless you have consensus, I saw all articles edited by @ZLEA must be reverted to their original state with detailed variant tables as they do not in their present form convey information to the user in a logical format. Swapcv (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}} I am afraid that is incorrect, consensus for the style guide that ZLEA is following has existed since the first iteration of the guideline (which was known as 'page content' at the time). I noted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1293889069&oldid=1293870401&title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft) on the talk page earlier this month].

::An RfC was raised to gain consensus for table formatted specifications to replace Template:Aircraft specifications. The RfC would not be needed if a consensus guideline supporting the table format already existed. The RfC is still open, I have expressed my views there in a civil manner, no consensus for change has been gained there so far. It has been raised elsewhere here that project guidelines are not necessarily the law which may be so but there is a world of difference in clarity between six variants and one variant. I explained how seas of numbers are not encyclopedic as well but have now stopped as the problem is not being acknowledged. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That maybe true, but the tabular format was accepted as the format to explain all the discrete differences between each variant within an aircraft family. Also given that this format has remained so for a very long time and was a result of contributions made by hundreds of editors over two decades so a form of consensus already exists. Thus for a contributor to then come along all of a sudden make sweeping changes citing obscure style guides which are non-binding and then stonewall the process by weaponising editing policy then it sets in deep suspicions about the users intentions. Therefore it is my recommendation that unless this dispute is resolved all changes made by the parties involved be reverted to the original state as it existed before, i.e with the specification tables intact, until either {{WP:AIRMOS}} is amended or a RfC for either side of the argument is achieved. Thank you. Swapcv (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Swapcv}} Did you seriously just compare me to Joseph Goebbels? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Due to irreconciliable differences with you on this topic, due to the accusations you've put on me and the vitiated atmosphere as a result, I will no longer be engaging in a direct discussion with you on this. If you wish for a mediation, I am all for it and happy to cooperate. Good day. Swapcv (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Blocked one week for doubling down on Godwin's Law. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Planeandaquariumgeek has now performed a mass revert at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A350&curid=1006446&diff=1296908784&oldid=1296775317 Airbus A350], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_707&curid=67409&diff=1296908928&oldid=1296249611 Boeing 707], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_720&diff=next&oldid=1296909038 Boeing 720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_717&curid=152437&diff=1296909318&oldid=1296085767 Boeing 717], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_727&diff=prev&oldid=1296909483 Boeing 727], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737&curid=149697&diff=1296908522&oldid=1296875683 Boeing 737], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737_Classic&curid=15103676&diff=1296909574&oldid=1295798333 Boeing 737 Classic], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737_Next_Generation&curid=17670854&diff=1296909671&oldid=1296165282 Boeing 737 Next Generation]. I request they be immediately blocked to prevent further disruption. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have no intention of causing disruption. My point is that right now you have 1 supporter and I have one. That’s why I advise we get a neutral mod in on this. Also honestly I’d be a bit happier if you make the info on the 727 about the -200 instead of the -100 since that’s the more common and thus more well known variant. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also at this point if this escalated any further I intend on escalating to ARBCOM. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::*esclates

::Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You say you don't intend to cause disruption and are willing to talk through this, but then you pull stunts like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A350&curid=1006446&diff=1296908784&oldid=1296775317 this]. This user has demonstrated numerous times today that they cannot be trusted to not abuse editing privileges, so I once again ask that they be immediately blocked. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I honestly have 0 intent of causing a disruption and that’s why I’m asking for a neutral mediator. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::An editor who has no intent to cause disruption but is repeatedly disruptive anyway is arguably worse, since it indicates a severe WP:CIR issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::So if you’re gonna accuse me of being incompetent I’m just gonna explain something: I’m in honor, my name is in honor, my person is in honor, and that means that attacking my person could come with fees. And before you further call me incompetent I’m just making it clear that I am soul possessing flesh and blood and not an oxymoron. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I did not call you incompetent, I just pointed out a fact that repeated disruption without intent is a sign of a lack of the required competence to contribute constructively. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296764801 Your personal attack] was an obvious case of bad faith. Whether you intended it or not, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)&diff=next&oldid=1296772334 this rant] of yours was both inflammatory and disruptive, as were your numerous reverts against the current consensus. You have not demonstrated that you are willing or able to constructively engage with editors who disagree with you. Whether you are acting in good or bad faith is beside the point, continued disruption will get you blocked regardless of your intentions. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That is quite literally calling him incompetent. Electricmemory (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::This was a really poor idea. Arbitration cases are quite rare -- there are only a handful a year -- and they're typically absolutely last resort community things not bog standard routing conduct disputes (which this is). If you were trying to cause disruption, I can't think of many things more disruptive than filing an obviously frivolous arbitration request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=1296920271 removed] the arbitration case request as obviously premature ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Planeandaquariumgeek&diff=prev&oldid=1296920747 talk page message]). Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Basically what’s happened is that ZLEA is refusing mediation, so we basically have no other option that i know of. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Basically what’s happened is that ZLEA is refusing mediation}}. Should mediation be required in the dispute and it is requested by a far less disruptive editor, I will accept it. Obviously, I have no interest in debating with an editor this disruptive. It's too late for you to request mediation. You gave up that privilege when you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296764801 this edit]. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::So basically here’s the deal. If this goes into mediation we could probably resolve this in 24 hours. If it doesn’t we’re gonna be going back and forth for a while. Planeandaquariumgeek (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::As I stated before, I have no interest in debating with an editor this disruptive. It's too late for you to request mediation. You gave up that privilege when you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZLEA&diff=prev&oldid=1296764801 this edit]. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The problem is clearly you have no interest in debating with anyone, at all. You have made it exceptionally clear you refuse to accept change of any sort, even if it's in-arguably an improvement. Electricmemory (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked Planeandaquariumgeek for 72 hours for personal attacks, with note {{tqq|Take a few days to chill out and just not think about this. When you come back, either find something else to focus on, or find a way to express your opinions on this dispute calmly and civilly. This is a courtesy because I can tell you do care about building an encyclopedia. A second block regarding the same conduct will likely be indefinite.}} I hope they take that advice. I haven't looked at Electricmemory or ZLEA's conduct; just trying to step in here before P&AG says something they can't unsay. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::An IP seems to have continued Planeandaquariumgeek's mass reverts. I have opened an SPI case here. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Mm, here's a twist, though, Tamzin: his statement above of {{tq|So if you’re gonna accuse me of being incompetent I’m just gonna explain something: I’m in honor, my name is in honor, my person is in honor, and that means that attacking my person could come with fees.}} That sounds like a legal threat to me. Ravenswing 00:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Tamzin}} {{u|Ravenswing}} {{tq|On the other hand i think that Wikimedia’s policies are very much ableist and in violation of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would be grounds for at minimum a lawsuit, but potentially a class action lawsuit since this has affected many people.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Planeandaquariumgeek#c-Planeandaquariumgeek-20250624005800-ZLEA-20250623223400] - ZLEA _T\^C 02:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Sigh. This is in the gray area of {{slink|Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats}}, since they're not actually saying they'll sue, but it's certainly an issue. I've left a follow-up comment on their talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. I had started to respond but then I saw you posted your response before me. I'll wait to see what happens next before I respond again. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Tamzin@ZLEA I haven't said anything that qualifies as a personal attack, not sure why ZLEA even said that to being with... Electricmemory (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

One has to wonder if ZLEA is really interested in solving this, given that he has refused any form of mediation or dispute resolution, did not attempt to message me personally even once, instead going straight to ANI in an attempt to get everyone he disagrees with blocked. If you're actually interested in solving the dispute, this is very much not the route to take. This is something that belongs in an RFC, not here. Electricmemory (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:It might help if you stopped making *new* personal attacks after the old ones. Especially on the ANI page like this. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please tell me where I've made something which qualifies as a personal attack. Electricmemory (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::A) The post I replied to.

:::{{strike|B) The post where you called ZLEA a moron.}}

:::IF you don't believe that kind of thing is a personal attack, you need to go re-read WP:NPA.

EDIT: My mistake! Sorry, the 'moron' comment was from another user. But the rest stands. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I wasn't the person who called anyone a moron. Please double check the comment signature. And the comment you replied to is a statement of verifiable fact; ZLEA did not attempt any other forms of dispute resolution, let alone ones that would solve the primary content dispute. Electricmemory (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I did go back and check, as you can tell by the 'EDIT' I added along with the strikethrough and apology that I added before you replied.

::And also before you went back and stealth-edited the comment I had replied to in order to remove your claim that {{tq| It feels to me like ZLEA is interested only in getting his way.}} Please do not edit your comments after people have already replied to them, unless you make the change clear. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Electricmemory is so keen on misrepresenting the purpose of this discussion, I will reiterate that my coming here had nothing to do with attempting to meditate a dispute. I came here to address disruption and incivility from two editors involved in said dispute. I, perhaps more than anyone, want this dispute to end as soon as possible. However, I do not believe that is possible given the behavior we are all witnessing here. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=CBAN imposed|1=It's been 72 hours since the time I can see the first mention of a overall site ban being made, and there is a clear consensus in favor of it. By my count, there's 15 CBAN supports, 5 explicitly opposing CBAN while supporting a project-space block, 1 supporting project-space block without mentioning CBAN, 2 supporting a full block, and 3 that are supporting "expansion of the block", with the arguments in favor of a community ban or full indef block being - unfortunately - well argued with regards to the problem. I'm sympathetic towards TE, and to the arguments against a CBAN, but given the consensus here, with the disruption they have caused, the result is clear: ToadetteEdit is banned from Wikipedia by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)}}

I did not want to be here, but consider myself too involved to take unilateral action. {{userlinks|ToadetteEdit}} (TE) is just not getting the terms of their unblock. On February 21 at User_talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive_9#unblock_2, @Voorts converted my block to a project space ban with some carve outs. All good. But TE since then has shown they do not understand or are unwilling to abide by them and I believe enough is enough and they need a full project space ban. They actually requested elimination of the exceptions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive371#My_topic_ban but that was mercy closed, which was appropriate. In that discussion, @Phil Bridger [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive371#c-Phil_Bridger-20250504102800-ToadetteEdit-20250503155200 suggested] that they just not edit those areas, but they seem unable to understand, comply. I know they are young, but I think they have been given more than enough rope.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/StayCalmOnTress&curid=77240353&diff=1296805937&oldid=1296798437 Today] wandering into an SPI discussion which was not at the level of requesting admin action, and is not one of their sanctioned exceptions.
• Read disputes on project pages and weigh in on the Talk [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToadetteEdit#c-ToadetteEdit-20250616180000-CoconutOctopus-20250616110000 with bad advice] which they are not qualified to give because they do not understand the issues. (Discussion: User_talk:ToadetteEdit#Comments_at_another_user's_page
• April using talk space to participate in RFAs that they were not allowed to participate in. They consistently, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive_10#c-ToadetteEdit-20250418064700-Star_Mississippi-20250417173100 April], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToadetteEdit#c-ToadetteEdit-20250616180600-Star_Mississippi-20250616124600 June] claim to "forget" these guidelines which is part of why I don't think they can handle grey areas.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive371#h-Topic_ban_exemption-20250425215800 which they opened seeking an exception because they didn't understand asking someone to add them was proxying. I know some of the carve outs were because they did good work at AfC, but I do not know if the good work is outweighing it anymore.

I am not advocating for a site block, but I think this user and the community would benefit from a ban from project space so there is no grey area for them to struggle with. If something truly necessary that affects them comes up, they can alert a user via their Talk and this would not be PROXYing, but the community will not collapse without TE's participation in project space so there is no need for them to edit. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 13:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support project space block per WP:TIMESINK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Now support full siteban per below. Honestly, how many chances can someone get? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Unanimous decision would be expected. TE is already wasting their time debating repetitively. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I have occasionally left a comment on TE's talk page to offer encouragment and advice as, over a couple of years, I could see where this was heading. I haven't kept up with their editing lately as the issues were becoming a timesink. I do think that the time has come to make the project space ban, without exceptions, indefinite. What I would add is, that sometimes topic ban can be confusing to some editors, especially those who like to see things as black and white with no grey areas. That said, numerous other editors have tried to help by explaining the topic ban, sometimes having to repeat themselves. TE has had a lot of assistance in this. 'Forgetting' such issues is now causing the same problems. I think it would be simpler for TE by removing exceptions.{{pb

}}Knitsey (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support non-appealable PS ban. Several people have put much of their time into helping Toadette, but they just can’t get the point. The WP:ROPE arguably ended after the numerous earlier boundary-pushing actions by them. ^EF⁵ 14:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Actually, change that to a project ban. ^EF⁵ 14:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::A projectspace ban or a site ban? Giraffer (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::“Project” as in siteban. Didn’t even recognize the Greghenderson2006 issues till Star Mississippi brought them up. ^EF⁵ 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Siteban would be good, so TE can understand and learn from their mistakes committed last year. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support I hate participating at ANI but in this case I think it is evident that Toadette simply does not get it and a complete topic space ban is needed to save everyone time. Hopefully this will get the message across, but if it doesn't I see no other alternative than a sitewide block, which I sincerely hope we can avoid. As much as it does genuinely pain me to change this, their response to this ANI thread has shown quite clearly that not only do I no longer believe they pass the WP:CIR bar but that for their own health they should be sitebanned. Maybe in a few years once they have matured they can return as I do believe they have the project's best interests at heart, but right now I do not believe being here is healthy for them or for Wikipedia. {{pb

}}CoconutOctopus talk 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support some expansion of the block, as necessary to limit the problem. The not unusual situation where an editor is restricted from something, then finds the next-closest thing to replay just the same problems, without being in literal breach of the previous terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Are you thinking of using pblocks (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces) as a technical enforcement mechanism? I would support a project space ban that was enforced with a block to eliminate "wandering over the line" that has been occurring. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• ToadetteEdit has requested a self-pblock on AN in response to this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Why can't we formally do this instead of them self-requesting something again? Last time that happened it clearly didn't work (nor did they actually honor it after the discussion was mercy closed), which is why we're here. — ^EF⁵ 18:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• We absolutely can - was just noting the attempt to solve the issue/forum-shopping to dodge the issue (depending on how you want to view it...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I think we (unfortunately) need to keep this going @The Bushranger @EF5. TE flounces after any discussion doesn't go their way and then they return to the exact same disruptive behavior, which is why we're back here and I think need to enforce the flounce. @Rsjaffe I think your solution is best otherwise they will edit project space once the discussion and sanctions are no longer top of mind. Star Mississippi 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I have posted warnings at ToadetteEdit's User talk page over the past two years but have also been hoping that the situation would improve as they got more experience here. Star Mississippi, do you think a block from Project talk space is also required here, meaning complete cold turkey? Or could they have access to Talk so they could participate in discussions but not be able to take direct action? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Liz participating in discussions are as much of the problem of late, but I do not feel strongly about a WT block. If I'm being honest, I'm expecting the disruption to move to User Talk if they remain unblocked since they do not understand the issues. Star Mississippi 00:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToadetteEdit&oldid=prev&diff=1297102687 This] is part of the challenge with this editor. They were mistaken in thinking they could not participate here so decide to use their Talk. While they are welcome to participate here and I advised them of such when I notified them because I knew it would be confusing, this is how they treat discussions they're not able to participate in. They have them elsewhere. @CoffeeCrumbs I'd have agreed with you re: articles before the recent renewed interest in Henderson's articles, but agree they're not as problematic there as other areas. Star Mississippi 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{u|ToadetteEdit}}. I have played the part of the nice cop with you so far, but I don't have infinite supplies of patience, so can turn into a nasty cop pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support expansion of block per EF5. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support rsjaffe's suggestion. I can't see any value in actions that rely on TE's judgement or the constant supervision of other editors because here we are AGAIN, bending over backwards and sideways for this person. Honestly, if that doesn't help,(Edited after seeing the shenanigans with the blocked editor below) I would support a complete site ban. Joyous! Noise! 05:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, and also support a full, lengthy or permanent, Wikipedia-wide ban at this point. The amount of time spent policing ToadetteEdit appears to be endless, as they just constantly are either asking for the terms of their restrictions to be changed in some way, or just actively violating the terms of their restrictions. And then inevitably they start complaining about how the community is picking on them for no reason and how they will never edit ever again. At this point, I don't see that ToadetteEdit will ever change to stop taking up huge amounts of community time after so many editors have tried earnestly to help, so in my opinion it's time for this all to stop. GraziePrego (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Toadette is now blaming the community entirely for and taking no responsibility for what has transpired? This is extremely, extremely immature behaviour that cannot be allowed to continue, both for Toadette's own sake and for our sakes too. I wholeheartedly endorse a Wikipedia-wide block. GraziePrego (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::"As for my background, I was told that I have autism/ADHD. I did not realize that! But it may influence my so-called poor performance in the backstage pages. I have great ideas, but execute really poorly"
• ::This also feels, VERY manipulative to me. I have AutADHD, it's not an excuse. Using it as one, as you said, shows a massive level of immaturity. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{+1}} I also have medically-diagnosed ADHD and will be seeing a doctor for a formal autism diagnosis soon (we do have a lot of similarities, I'm just realizing!), and if you have ADHD "management tactics" should be used instead of saying "oh, sorry I have ADHD, you'll just have to deal with me". I do feel bad that they're getting so many maturity-related comments, but they're relevant. — ^EF⁵ 18:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I also have autism, professionally verified by a doctor at early age. TE, please accept the consequences, grow up and learn from mistakes you've committed before. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• support a ban, with no opinion on a block. toadette should at the very least take a break. make some bean soup (big yum), find out why people buy knife sets, reenact florida man headlines, study a fictional language like brazilian portuguese, anything to get their mind together, with at least the usual 6 months before an appeal can be made to make sure they've had time to, as the younger folk say, "touch some grass". then, and only then, do i think the idea of letting them back in the fray should be considered

:...is what i would say, if the other problems with proxy editing detailed below weren't there. once they're ready to appeal the ban, they should definitely address what's going on there, maybe even over the issues raised in this part of the thread, because we can't just leave those sussy shenanigans unaddressed consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 13:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support a siteban because this is becoming a timesink. Would have initially supported the project space ban but the below from Star Mississippi and the frankly astonishing diff above from GraziePrego has swung me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban, with the usual proviso that indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent. Many of this user's edits seem to be about ToadetteEdit, rather than about improving the encyclopedia. They can come back in a year or two when they have matured enough to edit without becoming a timesink. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban in light of the issues raised below. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban per ser! and Phil Bridger. I hope that this user can eventually return to the site and edit without becoming a timesink. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 22:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I omitted this from my filing as I did not want to pile on, but now that User_talk:ToadetteEdit#Hansen_Bridge_(Downieville,_California) exists (thanks @Netherzone), I think it's time to raise this simmering issue. Even prior to his site ban, TE has accepted {{noping|Greghenderson2006}} drafts. At first I thought they were just a novice AfC reviewer unaware of the complex issues behind his drafts and blocks but now in the last week they have recreated (not accepted, created out of whole cloth) two drafts that happened to be created by his latest sock. I think there is something going on here. NB: I have draftified the latest as it should not be in mainspace without experienced eyes. Star Mississippi 22:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I really don't know what to make of this. Part of me is wondering if they knew full well this would attract negative attention. I'm not a reviewer so I don't know how they even found the articles? Or how they found out the editor had been banned. TE started out with vandalism reverts for a while, I'm not sure how they wouldn't know that recreating a socks articles would look suspicious?

::I would rather try and assume good faith and that this was done as they thought the articles were noteworthy and they were helping out the project. Knitsey (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Star Mississippi, regarding proxy editing, Toadette had a list of all the articles that Greghenderson2006's sockpuppet, Historyjunkie2024 had created on her user page (it was listed under "To do"), she just removed it with this edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AToadetteEdit&diff=1296958932&oldid=1296711902]. (It was a Special:Log listing of Historyjunkies's creations. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Historyjunkie2024 some articles need checking]). GregHenderson/Historyjunkie had a habit of reaching out to inexperienced NPP/AfC patrollers to review his articles. I'm pinging @Graywalls also as they may recall. This contradicts that she came across the sock articles by {{tq|"randomly clicking on links"}}, (and randomly coming across two of the sock's deleted articles and recreating them) sure seems to indicate coordination/communication with the blocked editor after he was blocked. I would Support a block based on the violations of restrictions in the above section and also for willful proxy editing for a known blocked user and their sockpuppet. Netherzone (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is certainly concerning. I do still want to believe that despite the issues ToadetteEdit does have the projects best interests at heart; I would be very interested to hear what she has to say on this topic. CoconutOctopus talk 13:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::TE putting a link to that list on their User page is incongruent with them understanding that recreating those articles would be problematic. If you know it's a bad look to recreate a sock's deleted articles then then you would keep that link literally anywhere else. Their writings on this draft talk page as well as their user talk page make me think they just saw the sock's articles get deleted and decided to check to see if any of them were worth re-creating because they (presumably) enjoy creating articles. I don't know TE but in reading multiple related noticeboard and talk page threads it does not seem crazy to me that they simply do not know that this could be seen as problematic. If we assume good faith then it's premature at best to suggest a site block for recreating those articles without evidence of coordination. — tony 19:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@TonySt - Just to clarify, there is also a history of TE answering GregHenderson2006's COI edit requests without properly checking the sources when it was a known that the blocked editor had a habit of misrepresenting sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212018156#Edit_request_accuracy], if you read thru the thread he even challenged her edits for not being to his liking while he was blocked back in March 2024. So it seems she was aware there were problems, and even admits that (after GH was banned) {{tq|I looked at Greg's talk page and saw the simplewiki entry linked from it.}} (His sock created those on en-Wiki.) Then later said {{tq|I read pages and click on random links}}. Re: the message on the recent draft talk that you linked, I had to ask her to do that for future reviewers. Over the past couple years great deal of patience, mentoring and good faith have been extended to TE for quite a long time by several editors. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks @Netherzone for the further background. In light of the to do list and the clear deception, I am now in support of a full block which makes me sad. Star Mississippi 00:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for those details. The longevity of their association is something I somehow missed until reading through that thread. I support a block. As an aside, you have been an extremely patient person with all of your communication with this editor. — tony 05:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks Tony, I always recognized her potential. Sadly she became her worst enemy. I wish her well and hope she can apply her skills elsewhere in life to great success. If she does get fully blocked she will have the time to devote to other avenues. I think she is just as frustrated here as the rest of us. Netherzone (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support There is a clear lack of comprehension going on here, coupled with persistent denials and attempts to evade restrictions (well-meaning or not). If this is the only way to stop that, it needs to be done. Intothatdarkness 12:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support based on application of WP:DUCK based on Netherzone's argument. I'm really familiar with Greghenderson2006 issue since I've noticed his COI edits a few years ago. He has a strong tendency to communicate Wiki related matter off Wiki and people associated with the article's subject or connected with the article subject often tend to pop and make edits to articles Greg is working on. I feel the pattern is adequate WP:DUCK to establish ground for WP:NOTHERE Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support, Just another of the many problems, I've watched all of this far hoping TE would course-correct, but that doesn't seem to be the case. My only interaction with them was when they managed to accept an AFC draft without reading any of the sources. It left a sour taste in my mouth, but I did not think much of it, but coupled with this, it makes me think they are not a good fit for AFC and NPP reviewing. The fact they are also topic-banned from project space makes me also open to supporting a CBAN. Sohom (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support full site ban - TE didn't comprehend enough about the terms of PS ban. I would support pblocking TE from respective PTS pages. We are running out of options to help TE. Ahri Boy (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban, the fact that they went on Wikibreak (which is a pattern it seems) and removed something that makes them look bad, especially considering the socks historical behavior, makes it clear they either have zero desire to change or are unable to change. The fact that they aren't engaging with this ANI thread at all despite clearly having seen it is also not in their favor. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support block from project space. Oppose siteban. I remain of the notion that the previous blocks shouldn't have had such a complicated set of exceptions, which basically just set up failure for a young editor lacking in maturity (though the block exceptions were made with the best of intentions). TE isn't a vandal, a spammer, a UPE, or a copyright infringer, so I think the danger to articles is limited. I also would urge TE to take a voluntary step back from Wikipedia no matter what for their own good; it's simply not healthy for Wikipedia to be such a large part of a person's sense of self, especially a young person. This is a worthy project, but you should be seeking out a far wider set of experiences at your age. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Support a block from project space but I oppose a site ban per CoffeeCrumbs. I think TE has a lot to offer this project but they need some restrictions. I would think this is 'last chance saloon' for TE. Knitsey (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Support project space block, oppose site ban. I have basically the same reasoning as CoffeeCrumbs. If TE really continues to do the proxy editing problem after this thread is done, I wouldn't oppose a site ban. (I hope this will never happen, though.) I am relatively younger than pretty much anyone here, and I do feel that sometimes, we all need to take a break. What I'm hoping is that a WikiBreak with a projectspace block gives some time to relax, chill out, and focusing on real-life matters more helps some thoughts to be sorted out. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :How much more ROPE are people willing to give? They’ve already been told to take a step back. ^EF⁵ 13:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree, sadly. Every time this user has made a poor choice or decision, it's always someone else's fault. I've seen no demonstrated ability to really learn from past mistakes, only a series of slight temporary course corrections and a failure to understand what they did wrong. Perhaps an enforced break will allow them to gain perspective and learn how things work here. Clearly they can't be counted on to step back on their own (which is unfortunate). Intothatdarkness 14:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Also adding that they’ve already been given a last chance (multiple, actually) and blew every single one. Why should we continue to give them “last chances” which they will predictably not follow? I myself am in the same age range as them, if that adds any sort of significance, especially as they’ve been using their age for pity points. ^EF⁵ 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I started editing when I was like, 14-15? I don't remember, I could never even imagen using my age as an excuse, others bringing up that I was a bit young so should be cut slack, sure, I could see that, but using my age myself would just be, shitty. Wikipedia is an adult space, there is nothing wrong with younger folk editing(and that should be encouraged imo but that's besides the fact), but we all should be expected to act like adults regardless of age. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support a project space block, oppose a siteban. Hopefully by having the software determine what is and isn't allowed will stem the disruption caused by prior references to the ban. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support project ban/block, but not site ban/block. I don't think a sitewide ban should be considered right now, but if disruption/ban violations occur, then it might be time. Also by having a look at Toadette's talk page, the user is taking a break because of this and even accepting a ban/block. And they never touched onto this thread, although they did open one at AN. The current ban (located at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Final warnings / Unblock conditions) allows Toadette to participate in this thread, which is one of the exceptions, provided that Toadette is involved, which this one definitely is. JuniperChill (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Sock blocked

| result = Sabupusi sock. Created articles deleted under G5. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|MoneyWikipedian}}{{pb}}

As far as I can tell, all of the articles User:MoneyWikipedian has created are AI-generated; they mostly cite nonexistent or irrelevant sources. I draftified several of their articles and got one deleted at AfD; they then blanked their user talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoneyWikipedian&diff=1295520924&oldid=1294189016], which also contained warnings from two other users regarding nonexistent sources. After they reverted one of my draftifications without fixing the sourcing issues (instead they seem to have simply run the text through an LLM again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Perak_%281658%29&diff=1295753889&oldid=1295739334]), I left them a personal warning message [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoneyWikipedian&diff=1296496384&oldid=1295811918]. They have now blanked their user talk page again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MoneyWikipedian&diff=next&oldid=1296496384] without responding to the issues and have just created another article where four out of five citations simply do not exist. I'm hoping an admin can apply a pblock from mainspace until this user can explain their behavior. Toadspike [Talk] 14:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Communication is required. Only response I've seen to the concerns is the one-word response: "prove?". Blocked from article space and invited to discuss here.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raja_Kecil_Rebellion&diff=1296836436&oldid=1296831089 removed] an {{tl|AI generated}} warning with the edit summary "no prove im use Ai", which isn't a satisfactory response to anything. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I see that "Raja Kecil Rebellion" was pushed off into draft world. Maybe we should do the same for Battle of Perak (1658). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am very busy at the moment, but I hope to check the remainder of their creations (and other content contributions) in the coming days, draftifying or AfDing as needed. If someone else does this before I get around to it, I would be very grateful. Toadspike [Talk] 18:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|OP blocked for sockpuppetry -- Sohom (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{cait}}

Hello Admins,

I’m raising a concern regarding editor CNMall41 on the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashwat_Singh Shashwat Singh].

On 12 June 2025, CNMall41 made the following edits:

Removed content from the Discography section claiming sources do not mention the subject — but they do.

Added the {{COI}} tag without first opening discussion on the Talk page.

Flagged the article with a message that “A major contributor to this article has a close connection with its subject.” This is not true.

The article was also flagged as not meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG) — though no clear reason or guidance was offered.

Diffs for reference:

COI tag added without discussion

Content removal with unclear sourcing claim

I (user Msmimiin) have contributed to this page in good faith — with:

Proper citations

Neutral, verifiable content

A single account (I earlier edited from IP 103.115.24.85 just to fix a typo)

I have no undisclosed connection with the article subject, nor am I paid or promotional. The accusation of close connection is unfounded. I am happy to declare anything transparently if asked.

My requests:

1. Can an admin please review whether CNMall41’s behavior (tagging/accusations/removals) is appropriate and collaborative?

2. Can someone advise how to properly address the "not meeting guidelines" flag? I’d like to improve the article constructively and according to WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO.

3. Is it appropriate to remove the COI tag if there is no valid evidence and no discussion?

I appreciate any help resolving this in line with Wikipedia policies.

Thank you,

{{caib}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmimiin (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{u|Msmimiin}}, please do not post LLM-generated comments in Wikipedia discussions. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. — Newslinger talk 17:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Also, please note that when you start a discussion about other editors on this noticeboard, you must notify them. I've notified CNMall41 for you at {{slink|User talk:CNMall41#Incidents noticeboard discussion}}. The instructions at the top of the noticeboard explain how to do this. — Newslinger talk 17:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your suggestion. I am new , this information is helpful, but it would be much more helpful and kind if you can help me solve the problem for which I have raised my concern. For a new editor , it will be helpful to get support from the experienced ones.

:::Thanks 🙏 Msmimiin (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Msmimiin I can't find evidence of CNMall41 doing anything wrong on that article. They have made [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=CNMall41&page=Shashwat+Singh&server=enwiki&max= 9 edits to that article]. It would be helpful if you listed which WP:DIFFs you find problematic and why. Polygnotus (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I request you to check the articles flag . I am not able to understand why the article have been flagged as not meeting the wikipedia guideline after providing several reliable secondary sources to each point of the article . Also, it has been tagged as the major contributor has a close connection, where's the proof of these two points ? If there are 9 edits I believe that's for the betterment of the article but why not removing this flags . Msmimiin (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not seeing an adequate explanation on Talk:Shashwat Singh for how you came to possess the rights to :File:Shashwat_Singh,_Indian_playback_singer,_2025.jpg, which you claimed to own when uploading the image. Can you please explain this? Further, that article has seen repeated sockpuppetry by UPE editors, which is also true of the one other article that you've made significant edits to, Aditi Paul. CNMall41 could have done a bit better of a job explaining their reasoning, but their caution seems prudent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I could have (and should have) and I'll take the trout if warranted as it was lazy on my part. I should have done the SPI on that date so sorry that we are now here wasting everyone's time. Just [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BluntIsBlunt filed here]. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Since you guys are from the west I don't expect you guys know many Indian celebs so I request you to be kind and patient and don't come to any conclusion so fast for 'new which belongs to the Indian celebs be it a single or actor or anyone , also please don't make it so difficult for new editors those who have the knowledge about the subject matter and contributing, if you point out the error and guide me what to do without flagging the same with your valuable comment , I can try and fix the eroor . We can make this a better community with each others help and support. Your comment is valuable so kindly and wisely use it that's a request.

::::::::Thanks 🙏 Msmimiin (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is there any bylaws in wikipedia to prove the rights belongs to the uploader ? As a matter of fact as per wikipedia guidelines when anyone uploads a pic on Wikipedia commons the details of picture already exists there , when I have uploaded the picture in Wikipedia commons means I have the right very simple. Why you guys making it so difficult for Indian celebrities to have a wikipedia page and the editors who contributed their knowledge on that particular page ? Yes I have also contributed to Aditi Paul's page and other pages too where I have the knowledge about the subject matter ,those who are Indian celebs . If there's a problem let me know how to fix it , I will follow your guidelines. Msmimiin (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::By uploading as "own work", you state that you are the photographer (that's what it means for the photograph to be your own work). If that's not the case, then the rights statement needs to be updated accordingly. It is, in fact, Wikipedia policy to correctly identify image material and ensure that its license is compatible. If it is your photo, you should clarify what event it was taken at or how else you came to take such a close range photo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::As I have already mentioned in the talk page and clarified the photo has been taken from a public press meet , where I was present and took the photo hence the rights belongs to me. Hope I have clarified. Now please don't ask what is the event where is the event etc because in India specifically in Bollywood or Mumbai film industry there are events happening in every 19 mints at a random public place , may be the wall looking good and I take good pictures that's why you guys are thinking it's a professional shoot but it's not , can't you see the image details , it has the phone details, date etc then why this question is being raised I don't understand. Msmimiin (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::To be specific during the song promotion of the song 'zamaana Lage' singer Shashwat Singh in Mumbai 2025 , do I need to put this caption ? I have the rights to the photo , does that match wikipedia policy? Msmimiin (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Personally I'm satisfied with this response, without having looked at the sockpuppet case evidence, which I expect SPI clerks will resolve separately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for your response and guidance. I would like to request you to also look into the SPI matter , I strongly feel it's being mixed up , there are ids which are blocked and being tagged as sockpuppets, but when someone is genuine how they prove it is there any policy or guideline to prove not guilty here ? My IP address is different, device is different, everything different just because I have edited a same page where someone else contributed does that mean I am with them ? In that way in every wikipedia pages there are atleast 5/6 editors contribute or may be more than that then what admins will conclude ...all of them from same team or farm ? I am clueless how to solve this puzzle and allegations. If you can guide will appreciate.

::::::::::::Thanks in advance. Msmimiin (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• This discussion was closed by {{u|Star Mississippi}} in 1296885077, but the linked SPI report does not seem to have resulted in a block. I am not familiar with the purported sockmaster and do not have any insight into this particular match, although as I noted above the suspicion of sockpuppetry is certainly reasonable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Hi I think you guys are doing SPI on some other ID's where I have no relation or connection , neither anyone can establish that connection when I don't have the connection, admins can check the IP and location feel free to check it and come to a closure and release me from your suspect list , this is absolutely not needed , suspecting an innocent and genuine contributor is not required..
• :I hope you or other admins will come to a closure soon and release me from your sock puppet suspect list.
• :Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I have no objection with your reopening @Rosguill. @Msmimiin please stop asking multiple people to review and expedite the SPI. It will be handled as a matter of standard practice and will not be expedited just because you request it. But to paraphrase @Robert McClenon, if you don't want to be accused of being a sock, stop behaving like one. You are not a new editor. Star Mississippi 01:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::That sounds like WP:Canvassing to me. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Much needed unbiased POV. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I think I should clarify that my comment was referring to Msmimiin directly asking individual editors to help them. That is what canvassing is. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Thanks again . Since I am a new editor I don't know lot of terms , educating myself and applying it here . I didn't know how to react or do the needful ence asked for the guidance here didn't know it's called canvassing, will not repeat the mistake. Msmimiin (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is 100% CANVASSING and it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ARandomName123#Question_from_Msmimiin_(02:19,_23_June_2025) continues].--CNMall41 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• ::When multiple admins are commenting about my id , I am requesting all of them . I am a new editor that's the reason I am shocked to know I am suspected as a sockpuppet, well I don't know how they behave, definitely not like me who is defending politely. Sockpuppets will never defend since they know they are guilty, they will wait for the verdict since I am new , I don't know all this hence genuinely seek help . Anyway, thanks for your valuable suggestion, will wait for the conclusion of the standard practice.
• ::Thanks again. Msmimiin (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I just wanted to note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so there is no system of due process. Everything is done through the required communication and consensus building. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Much needed reply . Thanks for the neutral POV. Msmimiin (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hello, Msmimiin. I know it's stressful being named in an SPI case. I know, I was accused of being a sock when I first started editing here, many longtime editors have. But, in these sorts of cases, being impatient can often cause one to lash out and say inappropriate comments which can make the situation worse. Our Checkusers are volunteers, just like you and and I are and they will get to review SPI cases when they can. Just be patient and continue with your regular editing.

:::Also, since you are a new editor, you probably are unaware that anyone who files a case at ANI or AN is scrutinized as much as the person they are naming in a complaint. It's because of this that many editor guides in Wikipedia essays warn against editors coming to ANI to file complaints. You might have opened the complaint but you do not control the direction of the discussion and if it turns out that editors have more questions about your editing than CNMall41's editing, well, you become the topic of discussion, not CNMall41. That's not a factor that is under your control. So, again, answer questions that are posed to you and be patient.

:::Finally, do not make assumptions about longterm editors. You said that we are from "the west" but as you are here longer, you'll soon discover that editors here are from all over the globe, from Pakistan, New Zealand, Myanmar, Ghana, Canada, the UK, Iran, from all continents and many countries. We don't represent one location, country or philosophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for this reply. Very helpful insights for a new editor. Will be patient. Thanks Msmimiin (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BluntIsBlunt SPI] already fond Msmimiin having a connection to another account. If this is open because of possible sanctions of my accusation, let's proceed. If not, I see no reason why this should be open. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi I am msmimiin and I don't have any connection with any other account as per as editing is concerned to any wiki pages , I have only one account through which I am contributing as an editor here . I had opened an account named 'Lopamudra Das' but forgot the password of that account and never able to logged in hence I am using my gmail account which is Msmimiin and I have never used any other account than Msmimiin for any editing , SPI team can check that for sure and come to a closure . My IP address and editing details are visible to all the admins. Msmimiin (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Pblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|OspreyPL}}

Hello, I am opening this thread because I am seriously concerned about the edits made by the account OspreyPL. It seems to me that there is an undeniable conflict of interest, although I cannot say with absolute certainty it is related to paid editing. It is essentially an account created in 2009 that edited in [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec-yearcounts/en.wikipedia.org/OspreyPL a reasonably acceptable way] for a year or two, then went dormant with very few edits. Around 2022, it became active again, showing [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/OspreyPL a particular interest] in Duolingo and related articles.

However, the edits on Duolingo-related articles seem overwhelmingly biased, constantly removing criticism and adding primary sources in an attempt to support original research. What stands out most to me at the moment is when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duolingo&diff=prev&oldid=1272323145 they removed a criticism from The New York Times]. The critique was about the lack of human interaction in the app. OspreyPL’s justification for the removal was almost laughable: Duolingo now allows users to “talk” to its characters…

In another edit, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duolingo&diff=prev&oldid=1285764330 they quietly removed] the information that a Guarani course exists. That may have been a mistake, of course, but I had already pointed it out to them, and they seemed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OspreyPL&diff=prev&oldid=1244573325 to accept it well]. In fact, just a few days later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duolingo&diff=prev&oldid=1286822641 they removed] a reliable source from a well-known author in the field who criticized the Guarani course on Duolingo, claiming the course is only accessible via direct link. They ignored the fact that this is a legitimate criticism from a real person about a real (and still existing) course. I want to stress that they were already aware of this.

Also, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duolingo&diff=next&oldid=1273853691 this edit, they also quietly added] that the courses are “well-developed”. According to OspreyPL, the source for this claim is the website “duolingodata.com”.

The entire article seems like a mess. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duolingo&diff=prev&oldid=1272998642 this particular edit] remained in the article for six months. Whether it is true or not, the source was terrible, and the language just as bad. I would like to bring this issue to the community’s attention, and I believe the problems with this account are just the tip of the iceberg. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I cleaned the article up a bit (so anyone looking to see if RodRabelo7 is correct should look at an old version of the article). It is indeed a mess. Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure if there's a COI and will presume there isn't unless there's evidence to the contrary, but at the very least this is a WP:NPOV issue. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:They have not edited since May 1, but the problematic edits are ongoing and they have gaps in their editing previously. I have p-blocked Star Mississippi 22:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Surayeproject3}}

On the 2025-04-07, User Surayeproject3 was formally warned not to edit article related to Assyrian, Syriac, Chaldean, and Aramean, without talk page discussion beforehand. See this. (Ctrl+F: "block for edit-warring").

On the 2025-05-06, Surayeproject3 made a list of articles that are highly sensitive to the topic Assyrian/Aramean. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1187 this]. For example, user Surayeproject3 proceeded to edit villages which he had listed as highly sensitive, including Anitli and Haberli (see below). (Ctrl+F: "Assyrian village").

On the 2025-05-20, I, Historynerd361, was informed by an mediator that Surayeproject3 has has agreed to "move away from the contentious aspects of the topic for the time being." See this.

User Surayeproject3 has since his warning on April 7 kept on editing articles related to the sensitive topic. Mostly templates was added by Surayeproject3. However he has swiftly went back to editing Assyrian/Aramean related topics and once again, pushes a POV. One example is shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haberli,_İdil&diff=prev&oldid=1295308287 here] where his edit summary says Condensing some references into Bibliography but he simultaneously adds the term Assyrian. Here he creates a diversion.

Examples of edits made after the warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haberli%2C_İdil&diff=1295308287&oldid=1295222625]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anıtlı%2C_Midyat&diff=1294811750&oldid=1294792025]

Edits made before the warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gütersloh&diff=prev&oldid=1274694037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yacoub_Shaheen&diff=prev&oldid=1275538044] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isa_Kahraman&diff=prev&oldid=1260699526] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrians_in_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=1260698314] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Jazira_(caliphal_province)&diff=prev&oldid=1260698775], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1260687566], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Södertälje_mafia&diff=prev&oldid=1260691240], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Place_name_changes_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=1260696676], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mhallami&diff=prev&oldid=1274548829], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haberli,_İdil&diff=prev&oldid=1280810243], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Rich&diff=prev&oldid=1276750459], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaboro&diff=prev&oldid=1276750517], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yacoub_Shaheen&diff=prev&oldid=1275538044], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gütersloh&diff=prev&oldid=1274694037], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ignatius_Aphrem_II&diff=prev&oldid=1262001531], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lice,_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=1262003139], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=1261997572], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1261995240]

WP:EDIT WARRING: edit-warring to push a POV.

Warned on 2025-04-07. Ignored the warning and returned to his old habits within a short time. Surayeproject3 talk page archive includes several attempts by other editors not fuel the Assyrian/Aramean dispute more than necessary.

Indefinite block or topic ban to prevent further disruption.

{{Historynerd361 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)|Historynerd361}}

:OP, please make sure to give them a notification about this discussion as required by policy. I noticed you didn't do that and have done that for you. Additionally please remember to sign your comments with four tildes per WP:SIGNATURE. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Whelp, can't say I'm impressed by their edits. Last time I remembered seeing them on my talk page, they replied:{{tqb|Sounds good with me. I've been recommended by Hammersoft to follow the same path, so I'll mostly focus on other topic areas for now. Would it be a problem to edit articles in the topic area that are not contentious or part of the controversy (say for example, cuisine, or something related to the Syriac alphabet)?}}A bit sad to see them making edits more directly related to the main controversy without communicating on Talk:Haberli, İdil (although they did communicate on Talk:Üçköy, Nusaybin!)
By the way, in the discussion you linked, @Asilvering did later rescind their warning, although that shouldn't have been interpreted as a go-ahead for making changes without prior discussion either. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Some points to respond:

:* The moderator who stated "any further undiscussed changes of this nature will receive a block for edit-warring" rescinded this following lowered disputes

:* The mediator mentioned, Chaotic Enby, stated that I am OK to edit articles in the topic area that were no part of recent controversies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chaotic_Enby#c-Chaotic_Enby-20250514205300-Surayeproject3-20250514204000] - for villages (this applies to both Anıtlı, Midyat and Haberli, İdil), I discussed this with another editor in the topic area [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%9C%C3%A7k%C3%B6y,_Nusaybin#c-Surayeproject3-20250609162700-Mugsalot-20250609150000] to ask their opinion

:* Historynerd361 has stated there was editing warring taking place, though he has not stated where the edit warring has happened

:@Chaotic Enby If nobody contested the changes on the actual article itself, is it still disruptive to the topic area? I'm not sure that every change like the ones on Haberli, İdil requires a talk page message every time. I've also edited outside of the topic area as well. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Well, it's technically not disruptive editing, but, regardless of the article you are doing it on, changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian" is still close to the heart of the controversy. You mention Haberli, but another editor explicitly contested it on that article's talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, Syriac is still there. I added Assyrian in front of it to make it "Assyrian/Syriac", so it was the only type of change like that on the article, see this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haberli,_%C4%B0dil&diff=prev&oldid=1295308287]. User623921 was Wlaak's old username, so it's not a different user contesting it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple&oldid=1283297108#User623921_%E2%86%92_Wlaak]. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That seems fine to me, especially since the link is to the article that is currently titled Assyrians.

::::@Historynerd361, I gather you're not on the same "side" of this dispute as Surayeproject. If you're interested in taking part in some mediated discussion on how to handle the topic, would you add your name to the list at User:Asilvering/List of ACAS parties? This was my earlier attempt to see who we could gather into the same room to talk about all of this, but since {{u|Wlaak}} has basically disappeared after being topic-banned (and that SPI is still outstanding), I haven't tried to push it forward, out of the worry that we were missing someone from the "Aramean side", so to speak. -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the reminder. I sure will add my name to the list. However I just want to note that Syriac redirect has already been retargeted to a disambiguation page, not to any Assyrian article. I also want to point out that surayeproject3 has been editing the same area he listed to be highly sensitive and listed for GS, the same area he said he'd step down from after being advised to. Even though he was advised to use talk page before editing he did not go through with that on the villages listed above. Surayeproject3 adding the term Assyrian just adds more to my skepticism. Even if he claims Assyrian/Syriac is a more neutral term, he won’t surf around wikipedia and add the name Syriac to where Assyrian stands alone. I am pointing this put in order to avoid POV edits, as he has proven to do in the past. Historynerd361 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder, ACAS was placed under General Sanctions last month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Content dispute, not a matter for ANI Star Mississippi 11:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|SounderBruce}}

I'm making this post because of my interaction with SounderBruce and Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss in regards to Pattullo Bridge which I split Pattullo Bridge Replacement into.

When I made the change SounderBruce, they reverted it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pattullo_Bridge&oldid=1296789293 here] with the comment 'Should not be split without discussion', which was unclear. At this point, I didn't do anything. I didn't undo it. I asked on their talk page to see if there was a policy I wasn't following and if they disagreed they should have explained in the articles Talk page. I did that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&oldid=1296790922 here], which I think is fair. Instead they undid it from their talk page and did not add anything to the talk the page or explain anything to me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&oldid=1296791291 I then try again to get them to discuss it]. Same response, this time using rollback to undo my questions and requests for discussion on their talk page.

This is where I'm very confused. I don't know if he's disputing it, if it's because I didn't do attribution or anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pattullo_Bridge&oldid=1296792926 This is when I undo their undo but also start a discussion on the talk page].

SounderBruce undoes it and this is the only short time they participate in any discussion. I get a sense of misunderstanding (there's name change which SounderBruce doesn't know about) and SounderBruce doesn't think the replacement bridge information should be there. I think that's fair and think the 2nd paragraph should be moved to the History Section and the first paragraph can stay. This is where I think there's understanding and so I make those changes. This is my mistake and it was fully reverted by SounderBruce. However, they have still yet to have a discussion on the last 2 paragraphs and refuses to participate. User:EducatedRedneck suggested we use Excerpt template, which I think is a good idea, but once again SounderBruce isn't saying anything.

I'm really at the end of my rope and feel like I'm being bit as a newcomer. I don't know all the policies, which is why I asked upfront. --Created Account For Old UI (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Created Account For Old UI, I've read the discussion on the article talk page and it seems to me that SounderBruce has a pretty straightforward position: there should not be an article on the new bridge until the new bridge has been named. But you've created the article, and SounderBruce hasn't nominated it for deletion, so I'm not sure what is left to dispute? The WP:3O you called to the talk page appears to have the same opinion. So I'm not sure what remains in the dispute here? You can go ahead and implement the suggestions by the 3O. -- asilvering (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's not the content dispute that I'm posting here. It's the interaction that I'm talking about here. The failure to discuss. I'm not sure if I implement's EducatedRedneck idea that it won't just be reverted by SounderBruce.

::The fact that SounderBruce didn't discuss anything (until I undid their undo) and consistent reverted my requests for their train of thought. How do I know SounderBruce doesn't like EducatedRedneck idea or is in favour of it? I don't. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If I understand their meaning, SounderBruce's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&diff=next&oldid=1296790922 first revert] included the message {{tq|The notice exists for a reason}}, which refers to the {{tq|Please keep discussion of specific article issues on their respective talk page instead of dispersing the discussion; any additions here will be reverted and ignored}} notice at the top of their page. A bit cryptic and bitey on their part. Woodroar (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm rather more unimpressed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&diff=prev&oldid=1296892352 this one]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why though? Why is it that I tried multiple times to engage and was getting stonewalled? Why is it okay to ignore the requests for discussions? Isn't that going to annoy other users who are trying to edit an article in good faith.

:::::I don't get how that behaviour can be accepted. I can guarantee you that if I did that at work. I'd be fired. At some point the user will snap. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, luckily for all of us, we're all volunteers, and no one can or will fire us. For the same reason, none of us are obligated to do much of anything at all, and that includes taking part in discussions, for the most part. If SounderBruce doesn't have anything to add, or doesn't care to say anything, they're under no obligation to. If someone both fails to discuss and prevents you from editing the article, then that lack of discussion presents a problem. So, like I said, and like the 3O said: just make that next edit. They will either come to the discussion, or they'll let it stand. You've done mostly everything right so far, so just keep going.

::::::As for the more general existential questions you're asking: my advice is that you stop worrying about what other people may or may not be thinking. You can't make anyone do or believe anything. The only behaviour you control is your own. If your own behaviour is patient, calm, and in good faith, you have very little to worry about. Take a deep breath, make the edit you want to make, and deal with the reaction to it if one comes and not before. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks. This is good advice. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed, you don't, but now it's 2:1. And if SounderBruce reverts you again in those circumstances, without any further discussion, I would consider that to be edit-warring. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Created Account For Old UI, what did you find unclear about "Should not be split without discussion"? That seems quite a clear statement. SounderBruce's lack of response on their User talk is not the best outcome, but they are correct that the best place to discuss article content is on an article talkpage. If you're looking for specific policies to govern every actions permissibility or lack of, those don't exist. However, in general any bold edit can be reverted, and in general such reverts should be discussed on article talkpages. CMD (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I wasn't trying to discuss it on their talk page. I put on their talk page that they should explain their reasoning for "Should not be split without discussion" on the article's talk page.

::That's not clear though. Shouldn't users have to explain why they didn't like the split. Because without that it sounds like 'oh I don't like it'.

::Maybe this is just me but I feel like if you don't like an edit and you undo it, that you should be obligated to explain why not just "Should not be split without discussion" Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes and no. If an edit is disputed, it's ultimately up to the person who wants to make the edit to build consensus for it. In the meantime, the status quo should prevail in the article. And since we're volunteers, you can't really make someone say more than "I don't like it". So your options at that point are to wait and see if more people join the discussion, go to 3O, post at a relevant WikiProject, etc. That being said, of course it's nearly always better for editors to explain their viewpoint. If your reason for changing the article makes sense and doesn't violate any policies or guidelines, and the other editor doesn't explain themselves, there's a good chance that consensus will eventually go your way. Woodroar (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I guess I'm too used to places where the reason you disagree is expects. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is expected to come up as part of discussion, but the onus for initiating discussion leans towards the person seeking a change. CMD (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I did not know that. If I was told as such, I would have done so. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That's not a problem, there's always more to learn. CMD (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not entirely sure why this is important enough for AN/I, because it looks like a fairly benign content dispute that isn't even really a dispute. I do agree with SounderBruce that it was premature to split without a name for the new bridge having been announced, and the content at the split article would fit fine within the existing article until the name is announced. I was tempted to DRAFTIFY it (as it's very WP:CRYSTALBALLish right now), but will defer to others if they feel strongly enough to do it or not... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is an extreme and unwarranted escalation. No editor should be expected to be on-call for the entirety of a weekend, and I would advise that patience is necessary when approaching Wikipedia. I have not had time to look at Talk:Pattullo Bridge yet, so the last paragraph in this original post is completely unsubstantiated and I will respond only to the accusation of incivility that is being made here.

:Clearly, there is some confusion here. The initial split was made without a discussion and appeared to be a mass removal of content, including information that would only pertain to the original bridge rather than its replacement. I reverted and neglected to request that a discussion be opened; it was a mistake on my part, as it was 2 am local time and I was about to log off for the day.

:As for my talk page message: I do not think it is unreasonable for an editor to ask for discussions to be in a single area for accountability and housekeeping purposes. I have previously had editors take issue with my use of talk page discussions, so this is something that I use to ensure compliance with site policies. I do not think it is appropriate for an editor to accuse another of "making it impossible" to discuss a topic or "engaging in uncivil behavior" and not expect to have that kind of language removed from a user talk page. SounderBruce 05:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::You could have easily replied to my first talk page message with 'I'll post on the articles talk page in due time' (which is all those messages were to begin with). You reverted it twice. I can't give you the benefit of the doubt when the alternative isn't much work, so the on-call isn't expected at all. It gives the impression that you are avoiding the discussion. Heck, you could have done nothing. Didn't revert or anything and in due time add it to the article's talk page and then delete it from your talk page. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"Avoiding the discussion" is not a credible claim when there's only been a mere few hours between responses. The essay linked above even advises that a wait of several days is recommended. There is no obligation to swiftly respond to a content dispute, and there is certainly no obligation for an editor to do nothing if there is a sudden and undiscussed change to a stable article. SounderBruce 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There was no expectation from my side. The problem is the undo and revert of the talk page messages without anything else. Like I said. You could have done nothing. If you did nothing. I wouldn't have said anything and went on with my day and wait for a response on the articles talk page. You did reply. You replied by nuking my messages. Created Account For Old UI (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|21st century genocides}}

Parts of the article are covered by WP:ARBECR. Since it's only parts of the article, the article is not ECR protected. Additionally, many people enjoy arguing about the word genocide, so IPs and non-XC accounts are edit warring over the contentious topics part. I've posted here rather than request protection because I don't know which venue is likely to produce the most effective outcome (which I also don't know - IP/account blocks vs protection). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I mean... if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::But is that necessary? Editors aware of A-I ARBECR requirements are supposed to self modulate when needed. If the numbers get overwhelming protection might be needed. But it looks to me like semi would be enough to cut out most of it any hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|hopefully any non EC confirmed can be persuaded they need to stay away from the ECR parts.}} I admire your optimism, but I find that this sort of thing is rarely paid attention to by IPs and the like.

:::To be honest an article like this should be indef semi'd. It's always going to turn into a battleground. — Czello ^(music) 07:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. If a non-EC editor wants to make changes to it they can always request it on the talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 13:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding {{tq|if part is covered by an extended confirmed restriction, then may as well ECP the entire page, especially if there is a lot of non-EC activity}}, this sounds alright, but as a decision procedure it doesn't scale well because the parts of articles covered by an extended confirmed restriction can range from just over 0% to just under 100%. Somewhere in that range is a fuzzy transition zone that causes people to not add the section=yes or relatedcontent=yes part to the talk page template so that ECR applies to the entire article rather than part(s) and the article can be protected. The whole ECR thing is a little...nondeterministic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with that reasoning if it's something like a line in a BLP that says "so and so said this thing about this ECR topic", but this is a list of genocides. Even in the lines that aren't ECR'd, it's still such a topic of contention that we're better off locking it up. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|24.142.217.38}}

Previous Report: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1190#Multiple_IPs_disrupting_a_page/IP_disrupting_after_receiving_block] The blocked IP in the previous report has been using a different IP to continue with their disruptive edits to the same Hot Wheels Let's Race page despite no sources to prove their edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hot_Wheels_Let%27s_Race&diff=1297000957&oldid=1296276922][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Netflix_original_programming&diff=1297000976&oldid=1296873602] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:To clarify, the IP in this report is a possible sock puppet of the IP blocked in the previous report, as the IP in this report had been disrupting the same pages multiple times. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|result=It looks like, once again, The Bushranger took care of all of the details. And Guard (2025 film) now has full protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The page Guard (2025 film) was initially deleted under G5 in March, as it was created by a sockpuppet of Taffystone. Later, the user IX1883 —who has since been blocked as a sock of the same farm—removed the redirect from The Guard and recreated the page Guard (film). Subsequently, Onel5969 moved it to Guard (2025 film) due to some reasons. Then, CNMall41 moved the page to Draft space, citing that it was originally created by a sock. Later, Thesazh moved it back to mainspace but was later blocked for undisclosed paid editing. All these events trace back to the recreation of the Guard film page. Given the chain of actions—especially the multiple recreations by confirmed sockpuppets and UPE —this appears to qualify under G5 or PROD.? Refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Saishna96 this case]2405:201:C410:3058:480B:B793:A1A2:4E2E (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:(A gnome writes) I've tagged {{-r|Guard (film)}} as {{tl|R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The prefix "the" is almost never a good disambiguator (though I know a couple of examples, such as The The) . Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Narky Blert hi, What about Guard (2025 film)? Created by sock and draft moved by UPE.

2405:201:C410:3058:CDCD:C325:31A5:7AEC (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No comment. That article is at AFD. I have no opinion on its merits. I lack the enthusiasm and energy needed to form an opinion. Narky Blert (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::To be precise, it was PRODdded, not AfD'd. That said, this was expanded from a redirect by a sock, and restored by a now UPE-blocked editor. Given that, I'm going to delete, restore the original redirect, and then move to Guard (film) where this was orignally, then restoring that redirect's current history. What a mess. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User:LepYd258 has been consistently making edits that do not have proper sourcing.

This account is newly created, split from Ydlp19 following some sort of e-mail verification issue, which I believe is properly disclosed on the new account, LepYd258's talk page. Ydlp19 first created their account back in 2019, editing football-related articles similar to what they do now. Issues with adding unsourced content, as well as a standard of English not up to encyclopedic standards can be seen then. Select diffs:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korean_football_league_system&diff=prev&oldid=934359879]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chungbuk_Cheongju_FC&diff=prev&oldid=936470550]

Over the years, surprisingly few concerns have been raised on their talk page, but of the few that have been added, none of them have been addressed. In fact, they have only ever made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1121964209 one edit] to their own user talk page. This is a violation of WP:NOTHERE, as the user seemingly is not making an effort to collaborate with other individuals.

They have also been WP:UNRESPONSIVE within their own edits, nearly never using an edit summary.

• As Ydlp19, [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Ydlp19/0 1.4% edit summaries used], (172/12,655), a surprisingly low number.
• As LepYd258, [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/LepYd258/0 0% edit summaries used], (0/531).

Last month, User:Gommeh [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYdlp19&diff=1291997049&oldid=1291910636 warned them several times] in a short period of time, as well as left a note directing them to other language encyclopedias. It was around this time that I began editing Swiss football-related articles and saw Ydlp editing a lot. I left an auto-numbered [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYdlp19&diff=1292340244&oldid=1292080224 warning] around this time for general uncited content. I then noticed that the user was involved at ANI. The discussion did not result in any outcome, I had also left a message at this discussion with my own experience, but ultimately nothing came of it, most likely because the warnings had been issued too quickly after each other. A note that Ydlp did not participate at all in the discussion, nor did they acknowledge that it was happening.

Since they created their new account, I noticed the account with a similar name and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYdlp19&diff=1294651704&oldid=1294128011 left a note] for anyone coming across the page that the user had moved to a new account. On the talk page of the new account, I have left warnings for various pieces of unsourced content I have come across while editing football articles. This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rasisalai_United_F.C.&diff=prev&oldid=1296927161 diff] is a good example of what sort of content they consistently add, a poorly formatted sentence that is unsourced about promotion or relegation to a new league, with dozens of these edits being made. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Epitsentr_Kamianets-Podilskyi&diff=1294127954&oldid=1293495945 This edit] that I came across is another similar example, but there are several more.

The user makes constructive edits a decent amount, simple updating of data or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1._Liga_Classic&diff=prev&oldid=1296623706 adding tables] that do not contain much prose for the article. Overall this pattern of editing has gone on for multiple years, and after no communication I feel the need to open up a second, more in-depth discussion here, at the very least in hopes of getting some response from them. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I said at our last discussion about Ydlp I still don't see them responding to our concerns. They've edited since then, so I'm assuming they've had more than enough time to look at their talk page. At this point I think it's safe to assume that they need a block per WP:CIR.

:Tagging {{reply to|Cenderabird|p=}} as they were the person that originally brought Ydlp's problematic editing to my attention. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:*Before requesting full blocks against a fellow editor, I've asked them on their User talk page to participate in this discussion. I'm not optimistic that they will engage but I think this is a necessary step.

::And I just want to comment that it used to be very rare to see an editor or admin suggest an WP:CIR block, it was only for instances where an editor under discussion did not understand the basic rules about how Wikipedia operates usually because of their age or a lack of facility with the English language. But now I see this suggestion every day that I stop by ANI. This is not a casual request to make and it should only be proposed in situations where it is truly deserved, not just for instances where editors don't respond on their User talk page in a timely manner. By proposing a CIR block, you are, in effect, stating that the editor is incompetent which could also be seen as a personal attack. "Let's block" should not be your "go to" solution for every problem. Years ago, ANI used to be a noticeboard full of hanging judges but thankfully, those days are long gone. Now if we could get more editors to leave personal messages and not plaster User talk pages with multiple templates, I think the atmosphere would improve. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the only hope currently is a block that leads to them noticing, then hopefully participating here. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I restored this section. For some reason, OneClickArchiver archived the completely wrong section. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Cromulent block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Dununderud9894}}

This user replied to their block notification using a bad word, which I reverted. Could you please revoke their talk page access? Thanks! Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here}

:The comment was on-topic to asking about their block and not directed at a specific user, so I'm not inclined to take action just for that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:However—and I'm intentionally not linking diffs—after looking at the edits the user made, block-without-warning was 100% appropriate in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The editor has been following my edits in violation of policy by reverting contributions that I've made across multiple articles and joining a discussion between myself and an unrelated third editor for an article which I have edited. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Zapata&diff=prev&oldid=1296791520] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnational_repression&diff=prev&oldid=1297063283] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tactical_Police_Vehicle&diff=prev&oldid=1297064585] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Super_Duty&diff=prev&oldid=1297064672] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commando&diff=prev&oldid=1297064918] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_special_forces_units&diff=prev&oldid=1297065609] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=43rd_Air_Mobility_Operations_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1297067594] In light of their report against me, I am requesting administrative action against this user. Nghtcmdr (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm wondering if it's time for a two-way interaction ban? —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@C.Fred

:This is a completely false report intendent to harass me. This is not hounding, @Nghtcmdr incorrectly removed info(In fact, they have targeted info I have added, so if anybody is hounding, it is them), and I simply added back the info.

:Additionally, @Nghtcmdr has failed to address his misconduct on ANI. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nghtcmdr]

:In fact, ironically, @Nghtcmdr has been hounding me on places such as WT:MILHIST. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Nghtcmdr

:You are taking things out of context. In fact, I highly suspect the edits that I reverted were exactly WP:HOUND. You have targeted articles where I have added info, and deleted said properly sourced info.

:In fact, you have yet to respond to your own misconduct on ANI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Thehistorianisaac explain this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Zapata&diff=prev&oldid=1296791520]. How were you able to find that change that I made for such an obscure article if you weren't monitoring my edits? Nghtcmdr (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Nghtcmdr

:::I DO monitor your edits, as I have seen a pattern of them being disruptive and involving unsourced info. Such behavior is NOT WP:HOUND. Other users have tracked my edits before(Back when I was new and my edits were, frankly, not that great), and such is a commonly done practice among people who prevent disruptive editing as WP:HOUND has stated. I have not reverted all your edits, as I do acknowledge some are okay, however when I revert edits where you have removed properly sourced info(without proper explanation) or add unverified info, that is not WP:HOUND. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You reverted five edits that I made across five articles within a matter of seconds. That's called hounding. Nghtcmdr (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That is not hounding. YOUR edits removed information(properly sourced) by the way, and I had to restore it. Instead of falsely accusing me of hounding, read the policies you are citing and STOP making disruptive edits. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Whatever's going on here is clearly starting to disrupt a number of military-related topics, and it needs to stop now. Nghtcmdr, I'd be *real* careful about throwing around accusations of WP:HOUNDING -- on at least two of those pages Thehistorianisaac's edit history doesn't appear to back up your claim. On Commando for instance, his first edit to that page appears to be June 10th, while yours appears to be June 18th and completely reverts his edit. Similarly, his first edit to List of military special forces units is from back in 2024; you've never shown up on that page before now. Further, your edit summaries are absolutely not OK here -- just saying WP:HOUND on an undo, repeatedly, does not adequately explain why you're reverting the content nor does it show any serious attempt at consensus building (and yes, I've been following the back-and-forth on y'alls talk pages for several days now and am not impressed). If you want admins to dig into the root cause of this, y'all better be prepared for boomerangs to fly.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I explained to @C.Fred on my talk page, the reason for the proximity in timing is because I took a sustained interest in law enforcement/defense-material on Wikipedia only after I started editing it again in light of the 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators. Nghtcmdr (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Nghtcmdr

::What got you into editing does not matter here. What DOES matter is that you are falsely accusing me of hounding(along with all of your previous misconduct, which you have yet to address), when ALL the edits I reverted were very openly bad edits(either simply unsourced info or just quite blatant removal of properly sourced info). Instead of complaining when I undo your bad edits, how about you read the policies properly and see why I actually reverted them? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Swatjester

:I would also suggest immediately addressing @Nghtcmdr's long list of misconduct [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nghtcmdr]. It is ridiculous how long it is taking for any admin intervention to arrive, considering that other editors have also voiced their concerns. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Both Nghtcmdr and Thehistorianisaac have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. I don't think 24 hours will be sufficient to put this dispute to rest as it has already gone on nearly two weeks. But, hey, let's see if anything changes tomorrow.

:If this bickering continues, I'd support an IBan. What I've observed over June is that Thehistorianisaac rejects Nghtcmdr's editing and I don't think Thehistorianisaac will stop following Nghtcmdr unless Nghtcmdr receives a substantial sanction which despite several noticeboard complaints, no admin has found necessary to impose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Liz

::I don't "reject" Nghtcmdr's edits, I reject all edits that go against wikipedia's policy and/or are disruptive, which includes quite a lot of @Nghtcmdr's edits.

::Nghtcmdr is obviously very ignorant to the policies he cites, and has shown blatant WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. He has repeatedly deleted reliable sources "because they are not in english". Unless either Nghtcmdr chooses to actually read the policies he claims justify removing properly sourced info, I will continue to ask for sanctions.Also, Multiple other editors have requested sanctions be taken against Nghtcmdr [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Weirdguyz-20250622083000-Thehistorianisaac-20250618030600] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Rhinocrat-20250622174800-Thehistorianisaac-20250622154400]

::I seriously question why no actions have taken place against Nghtcmdr. Again, if you see the original ANI, you can see Nghtcmdr has often done personal attacks, ICANTHEARYOU, WP:BLUDGEON, general harassment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#c-Nghtcmdr-20250621174200-RovingPersonalityConstruct-20250620032700] and ignorance of policies. I seriously do not understand why no admin has found it nessecary to giv seanctions. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor Etzedek24 recently made a mass deletion on the page: Madison West High School, as he claimed NPOV violations yet clearly deleting expansions of the article that is completely natural or merely informative of the school's history (e.g. it's history of location selection, architecture style, number of students sacrificed in WWII, and 21st century news reportings of the school's controversies.)

Because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I do not know how to directly cite his change, so I copy pasted Madison West High School page's History:

" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_West_High_School&oldid=1297071093 00:39, 24 June 2025] Etzedek24 talk contribs  21,951 bytes −11,702  Restored revision 1294040524 by Etzedek24 (talk): Revert to last good version. Removed POV language in the lead. "

And Etzedek24 has intimidated me in my talk page, instead of the article's talk page, that if I revert those changes I could face potential ban.

I has restored the current Madison West High School page to a previous consensus version by a senior editor, EvergreenFir.

I see this as unfair, and his editing clearly disruptive, and I request an impartial arbitration and necessary intervention from administrators to resolve the editing war. Feather943 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:You were supposed to alert the editor of this discussion per the big alerts at the top of this page. I've done so for you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your assistance. I am unfamiliar with many Wikipedia's functions, and I will continue to learn. Feather943 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Latest disruptive editing from Etzedek24 was made. He again deleted all expansions to Madison West High School, including ones that do not violate NPOV.

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_West_High_School&oldid=1297090225 03:00, 24 June 2025] Etzedek24 talk contribs  21,865 bytes −11,142  Restored revision 1297071153 by Etzedek24 (talk): Last good version. You did not have consensus, other editors were reverting the edits you made. Feather943 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tpq|I has restored the current Madison West High School page to a previous consensus version by a senior editor, EvergreenFir.}} - This does not seem to be the case? @EvergreenFir [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_West_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1295846136 reverted] your edits, and you proceded to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_West_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1295848330 revert] their revert? GoldRomean (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I did not revert his reverts yet, because he could easily do it again and this won't end. I will request a page protection and further administrator interventions. Feather943 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::And @Etzedek24 reverted my edits, not @EvergreenFir. Feather943 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I am talking about the part where you said, "to a previous consensus version by a senior editor, EvergreenFir". GoldRomean (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Response from the accused: This user has been engaged in a low-intensity edit war going back to April. They were adding clearly partisan prose and sources that violated NPOV and GNG, and whenever their edits were reverted or removed (by me or other editors), they simply reverted them back. I recognize that I have not engaged in as much discussion as I should have, but as I am not active on Wikipedia much these days, I did not think they would WP:LISTEN. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:But you could just deleted those NPOV sections, if I accept your premise tentatively.

:There are good-faith contributions I made to the article including expanding the school's major academic competition clubs, founding history, style of architecture, Golden Star alumni during WWII, and recent school renovations. It clearly becomes disruptive editing, when you delete ALL of them without distinguishment. Feather943 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Did you try to

::peacefully talk with Etzedek before trying to get them reprimanded? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I did. I made a comment in Madison West High School's Talk page, and to Etzedek24's talk page. That comment is as below:

:::"Hello Etzedek24,

:::I do not wish this to involve an editing war. The WILL findings were accurate and true; they directly cited West High School's email without distortion or paraphrasing. And West High School's action of dividing students' parents into "white student room" and "student of color room" can be described as racism by Webster dictionary definition, "a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and could violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This would be more likely true under the latest Supreme Court 9-0, Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). ruling, pointed to the text of Title VII, which contains no language that requires an individual in the majority to meet a higher standard than that of an individual in the minority. Moreover, this was significant news reported by local papers and a point of contention between parents and the district at the time.

:::Additionally, the lawsuits regarding the use of forced pronouns in the School Policy were a significant issue as well. You deleted it without any reason.

:::It is the spirit of Wikipedia not to censor, and what has happened needs to be shown as they were.

:::I have deleted the Trump 2025 Executive Order part, as you reasonably mentioned, it did not mention West High School. I deleted the introduction part that mentions' West's 'Scandals and Controversies' because they would not reflect recency as time goes forward.

:::What do you think about removing the "Scandals" part, and keeping "Controversies" as the section title, because I believe our disagreement is that you or some others holding different political views could disagree what WILL be cited as Scandals; however, it is in all accuracy to say they are controversial because of that.

:::Please let me know if you have further comments or dissents. I appreciate your time and this civil discourse, and let's keep it in good faith.

:::Sincerely,

:::Feather943 Feather943 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "

:::Etzedek24 accuses me of not Listening, but he never talked to my page until today's mass-deletion and this comment to my talk page:

:::"Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Madison West High School, you may be blocked from editing. The language and content of your edits are a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy. Much of the prose and citations you inserted into the article are unreliable, not independent of the subject, and in many cases, concern the school district itself and not the school. Continued reversions to this material will be taken to ANI or AN3. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]"

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madison_West_High_School&diff=1297086949&oldid=1297071153 version that Feather943 keeps restoring] is largely based on primary and low-quality sources and adds a section about a "policy that allowed students to change their gender identity" cited to Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and another that connects the school with Executive Order 14190. On top of this, there are sections on the Talk page about "forced pronouns" and a DEI officer implementing Critical Race Theory and silencing conservatives, plus a plea to report examples of bias to media so they can be included in the article. All of this sounds like WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE behavior. Woodroar (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Untrue. a DEI officer implementing Critical Race Theory and silencing conservatives has been deleted by @EvergreenFir. Citation from WILL was reported by local medias at that time, and it was about Madison West Administrators dividing students into ""white student room" and "student of color room" per unedited direct quotation from school email.

:Not addressing @Etzedek24‘s mass and unexplained deletion of sections:

:About School

:1924-1930: Founding

:1939-1945: World War II

:2020-2024: Renovation

:2020–2022: Academic and Policy Changes Feather943 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::It has been restored to that version again. I would revert, but am approaching 3RR territory. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It was reverted so the Administrators can clearly see the damage done by your mass-deletion. Feather943 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Explain & Justify your deletion of:

:::: About School

:::: Extracurricular Activities (new edits to include a list of current academic competitive clubs via order of alphabet, and hyperlinking them,)

:::: Main Events of School

:::: 1924-1930: Founding

:::: 1939-1945: World War II

:::: 2020-2024: Renovation

:::: 2020–2022: Academic and Policy Changes

:::Feather943 (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Objection to WP:RGW per evidence above.

::Objection to WP:NOTHERE accusations. per my effort of major expansions of the page under Main Events of School, and @Etzedek24 also deleted my addition to Extracurricular Activities. In his mass-deletion, he deleted the link I provided to the School's most updated list of current clubs, and a listing and hyperlinks of it's academic competitive clubs. Feather943 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Per the very top of this page: This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. None of this qualifies. Take it to the talk page and knock it off with the edit-warring or you can both find yourselves in time-out. Additionally, all of those alumni listed at the bottom need sources, or they need to be removed, per WP:BLP. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, it was an urgent incident of deleting of my weeks of efforts of expanding the page. It's not possible for me to wait and see the subsections of Main Events of School are mass-deleted without reason.
• :I have compromised by including About School's Equity Vision, and have deleted unverifiable sources.
• :It was encouraged in my new wiki Guide to contribute by expanding pages, and seems now, is that still the case? Feather943 (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, I suggest following the process at WP:DR, perhaps a WP:3O? Staying here might result in you both being blocked for edit warring, which neither of you would like. GoldRomean (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree with your suggestion and will not continue to evolve to a loss-loss situation. I will break away from editing Madison West High School and this noticeboard, until I introduce the page to WP:DR and WP:3O, which will be done within 14 days. Until WP:DR and WP:3O processes is finished or 14 days passed, I will not interfere with any edits made from @Etzedek24, disruptive or not. Feather943 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Also, I would suggest a review of WP:OWN might be in order as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Thank you, I had reviewed it and it was helpful to learn No one owns Wikipedia articles. Feather943 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I am quite aware of the edit warring policy and do not intend to violate it. But as I said upthread, and other users in this thread have pointed out, this has been going on since April and demonstrates some NOTHERE issues, especially because Feather943 has reverted edits from users other than myself. They have put so many blocks of text in this thread that it is somewhat hard to navigate. I introduced this issue at the relevant Wikiproject hoping to get more eyes. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=LLM report|{{nac}} Duplicate, AI-generated discussion about to turn into a WP:BOOMERANG. FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Russell Surasky exists. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 09:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{cait}}

Subject: Repeated reversion of policy-compliant content and lack of talk page engagement – Scott Russell Surasky article

I am requesting administrative input regarding repeated reversions of sourced, policy-compliant content to the article Scott Russell Surasky.

Several experienced editors—including User:Bearcat, User:Alpha3031, and User:Molikog—have reverted significant additions without responding on the talk page, despite multiple attempts to engage them in good faith.

• I expanded the article using reliable, independent sources, including:
• National TV networks: Fox News, NewsNation, OANN
• Academic affiliations: Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health Hospital System
• Legal case databases: Justia, Midpage
• Major publisher: Simon & Schuster
• The subject, Dr. Surasky, is a double board-certified neurologist, holds fellowships in the AAN and ASAM, and has provided expert testimony in both federal and state court proceedings.
• He has appeared regularly as the sole medical expert in televised segments about major public health issues—including President Biden’s cognitive status, COVID-19 mandates, and air quality risks—on programs like Tucker Carlson Tonight, Cavuto Live, Newsmax, and Fox Business.
• Each claim is sourced and written in neutral tone. I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m open to revising tone or trimming content collaboratively.

• Repeated reverts are being made without edit summaries or talk page discussion, despite my clear invitations to collaborate.
• Past deletion discussions are cited as justification for reverting, even when new, independent sources are added.
• In one edit summary, a user dismissed my contributions as "AI slop that would be funny if we didn’t have to wade through it." This kind of language violates WP:CIVIL and discourages constructive engagement.
• Another user accused me of having a conflict of interest, despite the fact that I have disclosed my identity and am not the subject of the article.

I ask that an uninvolved administrator review:

• Whether continued reversion of fully sourced content—without addressing it on the talk page—constitutes disruptive editing.
• Whether the conduct of involved editors violates Wikipedia's principles of collaboration, civility, and consensus-building.
• Whether further administrative guidance or protection is appropriate to allow neutral discussion to proceed.

Thank you.

–– User:Neurodoc99 05:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{caib}}

::Literally the only thing I've ever done to this article is remove a redlinked category from it, as articles are not allowed to be filed in redlinked categories per WP:REDNO. I've not had one single solitary second of involvement with any of the disputed content whatsoever, because again the only thing I ever did is remove it from a nonexistent category that can't have pages in it because it doesn't exist to have pages in it. So I'll thank you to keep my name out of any of this accordingly, since it ain't got nothing to do with me. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Neurodoc99, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Do you have a relationship to the subject of the article?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::You say you have disclosed your identity. Can you point to the edit where you did that? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, WP:LLM senses tingling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Correction: In my original post, I incorrectly stated that I had "disclosed my identity." To clarify: I have not made any formal COI disclosure because I am not affiliated with the subject of the article in any way. I am not the subject, and I am not editing on behalf of the subject or anyone related to them. All of my contributions have been made in good faith, based solely on reliable sources and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{em|My}} LLM senses are burnt out from the sheer magnitude of blatant falshoods and errors in the editor's every single comment (I've only edited the AFD and not the page in question, and thus have not had occasion to make any reverts), I suppose I shouldn't be encouraging people who are WP:NOTHERE to be more subtle by correcting those LLM errors. Since administrative action is called for here though I'm curious to see how soon it gets done. And by "it" I mean getting hit by the boomerang they just threw. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cait}}

:::::@Alpha3031 – I’d like to respectfully note that, so far, you haven’t responded to a single specific source, factual point, or notability argument I’ve raised. Instead, your replies have focused entirely on tone and editor motive, using dismissive language (“blatant falsehoods,” “boomerang,” “LLM errors”) rather than engaging with the content.

:::::As a newer editor seeking to contribute based on policy and reliable sourcing, I would sincerely appreciate your response to the actual material in question. To be specific:

:::::* The subject has appeared as the sole physician and neurologist in nationally broadcast segments on Fox News, NewsNation, Newsmax, and OANN, addressing high-profile issues including: • Presidential cognition (multiple appearances including full-length segments) • COVID-19 mandates and vaccine policy • National stimulant shortages (e.g. Adderall) • Opioid and fentanyl overdoses (including in the context of the Columbine survivor) • Air quality and neurological risk during California wildfires

:::::* He has been interviewed on national television by Neil Cavuto, Tucker Carlson, Dr. Drew, and Newsmax anchors, often as the only medical expert featured.

:::::* He is a double board-certified neurologist, holding fellowships in both the American Academy of Neurology (FAAN) and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (FASAM).

:::::* He has authored a nationally distributed book on addiction medicine, published by Simon & Schuster (via Post Hill Press), which includes a foreword by Dr. Drew Pinsky and a printed endorsement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

:::::* He has also served as an expert witness in both federal and state legal proceedings, cited by name in court rulings related to addiction medicine and neurological injury.

:::::The article text I proposed was written in a neutral, policy-compliant tone, with reliable secondary sources cited throughout. I’ve repeatedly invited collaborative editing—not POV insertion or advocacy, just proper representation of WP:SIGCOV.

:::::If there are substantive objections to any of the above, I’d sincerely welcome discussion. But ongoing reversion, silence on the talk page, and remarks that target the contributor rather than the content discourage participation and undermine the encyclopedic mission.

:::::–– Neurodoc99 Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{caib}}

::::::If you don't want to be called out for WP:MEATBOT then stop doing it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Neurodoc, on your three national news networks, see WP:FOXNEWS and WP:OANN. One is of contested reliability, and the other is unreliable (NewsNation is generally reliable, but I doubt it's enough to establish notability on its own). Also, I'm pretty sure the rest of what you mention is not in and of itself enough to establish notability.

2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:5A6:7C50:F43E:F1F3 (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{cait}}

::@2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:5A6:7C50:F43E:F1F3 – I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that under WP:RS, the issue isn’t whether a source is universally reliable for all claims—it’s whether the source is a reliable secondary source for factual coverage in the specific context cited.

::In this case, appearances on Fox News, NewsNation, Newsmax and similar national TV networks are cited only to establish notability under WP:SIGCOV—not to assert biomedical facts. These are independent, third-party sources covering the subject in non-trivial, recurring detail.

::Dr. Surasky has been the sole physician—specifically, the only neurologist—interviewed on Fox News regarding President Biden’s cognitive status prior to his 2024 withdrawal. He has been featured in solo interviews with interviewers including Neil Cavuto, Tucker Carlson and many others. Full length, solo interviews on topics include:

::* Cognitive decline in political leaders

::* COVID-19 mandates and vaccine policy

::* Opioid and fentanyl overdose trends

::* California wildfire health effects

::* Mask mandates in neurologically vulnerable populations

::* National stimulant shortages and Adderall misuse

::These are substantive, sustained, subject-centered broadcasts—not passing mentions or press releases. Under WP:SIGCOV, this kind of media exposure qualifies as significant coverage, especially when the individual is the only expert interviewed on matters of national interest.

::While editorial slant may be debated, properly cited interviews in top-rated outlets like Fox News (per Nielsen ratings) meet notability guidelines when used to demonstrate prominence—not to support contested facts.

::If balance is a concern, I’m open to collaborative additions. But rejecting this level of national media coverage outright would contradict longstanding WP:N precedent and misrepresent the threshold for notability.

::– ~~~~ Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{caib}}

:::Do we allow the use of LLM's here? Isn't consensus to roll em up and ignore them? - Roxy the dog 07:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand concerns about the use of LLMs. I used a language model to help draft sections, but I’m not uploading content blindly. I'm working to verify sources and ensure the tone and citations meet Wikipedia standards. That said, I’m still learning, and I welcome corrections where something falls short of policy.

::::I’ve made repeated efforts to discuss on the talk page and revise in good faith. It would be much more helpful if editors addressed the content directly—what sources are lacking, which sections need trimming—rather than dismissing the entire contribution based on how it was drafted.

::::–– ~~~~ Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, WP:AITALK. On my phone right now so don't want to mess with templates, but it's probably better for someone to hit the emergency stop button first otherwise there's probably just going to be more of it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The article is being discussed at AfD. I see no reason to keep this duplicate open, unless there is a case for a WP:BOOMERANG. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{Userlinks|XYZ 250706}}

I am bringing this here after months of attempting to resolve a prolonged, frustrating content and conduct dispute with user @XYZ 250706 regarding several India-related communist articles.

Despite my repeated efforts to engage constructively through article talk pages and avoid edit warring, XYZ has consistently stonewalled any meaningful discussion, frequently misused edit summaries to accuse me of disruption, and has shown signs of WP:OWN behavior. They have also engaged in repeated reverts without building consensus, misrepresented consensus when it didn't exist, and generally made collaboration impossible. At first, I was considering taking this to Content Dispute Resolution, but this is much more about behaviour and user conduct which is why I have opened this in ANI.

Details:
1. In the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), XYZ has repeatedly reverted my attempts at adding a sourced history section, which deals with expulsion against dissidents and supposed revisionists. XYZ reverted it repeatedly, calling it "badly sourced" even though the source is extremely reliably and scholarly and the authors are highly reputed. I opened multiple discussions. XYZ refused to engage and continued reverting, providing no policy-based rebuttal, only "I disagree"-style arguments. This article has no other active editors apart from the two of us, yet they insist I must "gain consensus" from them alone while rejecting all my attempts at discussion.

2. In the Communist Party of India (Marxist), XYZ added a list of political buzzwords, such as Anti-neoliberalism, Anti-imperialism, etc., to the infobox. I removed them because they were badly sourced and redundant and opened a discussion. XYZ opened a discussion on the talk page of the article, which also attracted some other editors. The discussion was quite polarized yet XYZ claimed majority support and continued editing accordingly. They have since also began removing the Far-left label from the article, as well as the article List of political parties in India without any meaningful reason why.

3. XYZ refused to compromise, and has accused me of bludgeoning, being disruptive, and edit warring, despite my repeated efforts to deal with the matter through discussions. Looking at their user history, this is not a one-off behavior. They have [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XYZ_250706#Unblock previously been blocked by an admin], from editing some articles because they bypassed the article creation draft process and were disruptive at the AfD. Some weeks ago, they were [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XYZ_250706#June_2025 given a notice by another editor] for adding WP:OR content. Furthermore, in their user talk page, a discussion was opened by a separate editor due to XYZ's use of "reverting things based on WP:CONSENSUS without actually stating what makes the changes controversial." XYZ has since deleted the discussion but it can be accessed at the talk page edit history [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XYZ_250706&oldid=1294233446 here, at the discussion titled 'People's democratic state'].

I would appreciate admin input, advice, or actions. Thank you. EarthDude (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:60% editors who took part in previous discussion supported my view. I requested User:Robert McClenon to review sourcing and his report supported my view. The issue related to people's democratic state was resolved with other editor. There was misunderstanding, but I and the other editor reached consensus through discussion. User: EarthDude blatantly imposes his edits over others to his POV. I removed far-left as it is nowhere mentioned in his source and previously other editors have removed adding far-left added by some IP address and sock editors. I told no other sources says that EMS Namboodiripad removed any Politburo member and history of CPIM politburo also doesn't indicate any removal/purge. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Anti-Imperialism is mentioned here (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=AgybDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and even in other sources and Earth Dude continuously removed those things. Besides he thinks discussion not holding his views cannot be regarded as consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::One editor also accused EarthDude for imposing his POV. User Talk: EarthDude#Stop deleting and imposing your POV. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::What you are talking about was a seven day old account who reverted my edits and attacked me for POV pushing, even though all I did was grammatical fixes, removing minor and non encyclopedic information (like the number of languages someone knew) and adding some reliably sourced content. Said wikipedia usee had also attacked other senior and more established editors for a supposed "anti-Indian" agenda, and after which they stopped all engagement with the platform. Im pretty sure the last time I checked, basic wikipedia editing work was not "POV pushing."

Also, once again, you are manufacturing a non-existent consensus. A simply look at the discussion would show how polarized it was and how no full consensus was reached.

On 30 May, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XYZ_250706&oldid=1294210538 a third-party editor opened a discussion titled "Battleground conduct and edit warring"] on your talk page regarding your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, edit warring, and misrepresentation of wikipedia policy, and suggested you open a dispute resolution. You have since deleted the discussion without meaningfully engaging with that either. EarthDude (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::See the issue was resolved between us and that issue was regarding you. I want to draw the admin's attention to Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist) where 3 editors supported adding multiple ideologies and 2 opposed it and one more editor supported clarifying ideologies here Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist)#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024. The idea to analyse sources by Robert McClenon was given to me by Wikipedia admin Star Mississippi. Previously also multiple ideologies were added in the article and any editor removed that without any consensus or discussion. You didn't support any idea doesn't mean there is no consensus. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Regarding, the Politburo debate, I have already placed my view in the discussion opened by EarthDude here in Talk:Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)#Regarding the History section. Not supporting his views/ideas can't be disruption or bad faith edit. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute ranging over several articles and it looks like the situation would be aided by the Dispute resolution process. Has that been attempted yet? You both have to be willing to participate and understand that a compromise might involve you not getting "your" way. But trying to eliminate an editor who has different perspective than your own doesn't work. You have to be willing to engage without attacking the other editor and right now, I'm not seeing much mutual respect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :@Liz Once more I want to emphasize the fact that I opened discussion regarding CPIM's ideologies. There three editors supported adding more ideologies and two opposed it. One more editor in one previous discussion (edit request) supported clarifying ideologies. So I added multiple ideologies. But User:EarthDude reverted those changes saying that consensus is not arrived. Then he opened another discussion. He was first saying that sourcing was not at all good and then when I am showing reliable sources, he is saying those are redundant. XYZ 250706 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Even when you opened a discussion, and mind you the only attempt at consensus building you ever made, you still kept bypassing it by editing into the article your proposed changes, far before any consensus was ever reached. From the start, I said much of your proposed inclusions were somewhat redundant but I agreed with some points and all I did was highlight the issues with your sourcing. Just some days ago, I even included one of your proposals to the article. But then you began accusing and attacking me, and going to unrelated discussions of my talk page to further attack me, and as a whole acting as if there was some kind of war going on between the two of us. EarthDude (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::First of all, I removed changes like NCERT sources, ideology like environmentalism, democratic socialism as they were steongly opposed by others in discussions. I didn't made any personal attack to anybody. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::By the way, multiple ideologies were added to the article even about 8 months ago. One editor removed it without consensus. I added them with some tweaks. Besides somedays ago, one more editor User:Ahammed Saad edited the page [the version revised by me (without NCERT sources, environmentalism)] and he just added Communism also. No opposition for adding other ideologies was done by him also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I had been thinking of opening a dispute resolution for quite some time but there were strict rules written at the top that it should not have anything to do with user behavior, so I was quite conflicted on that. I ended up deciding ANI because this is much more about user conduct than a simple content dispute. I have opened a lot of discussions. I have compromised on a LOT of issues. But I see none of that from the other side. EarthDude (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Userlinks|MotorolaBoy}}

Since their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukarrib&diff=prev&oldid=1291708804 first] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%CA%BFmt&diff=prev&oldid=1291709657 two] edits on this website, MotorolaBoy seems to have beef with me and my username. They've been accusing me of WP:Nationalist editing for seemingly no reason at all. We've never had any contact when they made their first edit. I've warned them multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MotorolaBoy&diff=prev&oldid=1291751478] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MotorolaBoy&diff=prev&oldid=1296173053] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MotorolaBoy&diff=prev&oldid=1297018698] not to make accusations like these, but just a few moments ago, they've went on to write a 3 paragraph rant accusing me of being a nationalist (With their only proof being {{tq|1=His name literally translates to "father of Yemen" }}) and gave a reference to a no-longer existing page title (Sabaean colonization of Africa) that I've supported renaming where they have made acusations suspiciously similar to the ones {{userlinks|Apprentix}} have made towards me 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like a WP:NPA violation to me. Can you please describe the issues Apprentix has had with you in the past? » Gommeh (he/him) 20:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::This discussion that we've had on that article's talk page (link) where they've accused me of nationalist editing multiple times.{{pb}}You can see this ANI post about him Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Apprentix 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Abo Yemen has been attempting to ban me, accusing me of sockpuppeting because I edited using my IP a handful of times prior to making this account (which I never hid, stopped doing when informed not to, and he wouldn't have known had I not said it was me), and now claiming I'm the same person as a banned account I've never seen at all. To know what our disagreement stems from check User talk:Asilvering#Block evasion. Abo Yemen is targeting and harassing me in an effort to stop me from opposing his obviously historical revisionist edits which would either be described as nationalistic or racist. After he followed me across multiple pages he never contributed to so he could revert my edits, leaving antagonizing comments I naturally accused him of having motivations I believed did not align with proper conduct on this site (or so I thought).

:::If you ban me like he's wanted since I began editing or take his side in harassing me further like everyone else up to this point has I don't care. My experience here has bene nothing but unpleasant to say the least. It was only when someone left a message on my talk page stating I would likely have my ability to edit revoked because of Abo Yemens campaign to stop me from opposing his obviously biased editing history that I decided to reply after deciding I would no longer do more than read on wikipedia due to him. Abo Yemen should be banned, as I said in the other thread I'm not requesting anyone do so yet. That will come in due time provided I'm treated fairly now. Theres a litany of evidence against him I'll be bringing forward.

:::You can take away my editing ability though, if you don't want me to defend myself from his aggression or rightfully criticize his manipulation of history then this is not the place for me. MotorolaBoy (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@MotorolaBoy, it is really important that you assume good faith, and that you bring evidence if you're going to accuse another editor of some kind of misconduct. If Abo Yemen is making racist edits that push a nationalist point of view, we'll get him to stop. But we're not going to do anything whatsoever without any evidence. Meanwhile, Abo Yemen has provided evidence of you harassing him, and that absolutely will get you blocked if you don't cut it out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@MotorolaBoy It aint that deep. Just stop it with the personal attacks. I literally have nothing against you, and I am definitely not a racist (like, wtf??) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Brother I've only been on here for a week but you started it and might still get me banned. You've definitely been following me around and trying to mess with me. I'm gonna accuse you of racism and harassment since you're playing dirty. MotorolaBoy (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::What's most likely to get you blocked is the way you keep making personal attacks against another user and not providing any evidence of your claims against him.

::::::Abo Yemen isn't forcing you to do that, it is your choice. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::He also very clearly did not "start it", since MotorolaBoy's first edits are personal attacks. I've tempblocked as a final warning, since "I'm gonna accuse you of racism and harassment since you're playing dirty" is pretty unambiguous, but since a bunch of this went down on my own talk page, some other admin should handle it if it keeps going. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• They have been actively editing today. I've posted a request for them to come and respond to your complaint, Abo Yemen. Let's see what they have to say. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Abo Yemen, since you brought it up, can you provide a link to that 3 paragraph rant? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Liz, that's at User talk:Asilvering#Block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Liz they said in that same discussion that they stand by everything they said User talk:Asilvering#c-MotorolaBoy-20250624212700-Abo_Yemen-20250624071100, and this comment of theirs where they said {{tq|1=I'd like both you and Abo Yemen to look through not only this reply chain but my activity and come to more logical conclusions. Well, I don't expect that of him}} is another implied personal attack. They also claimed that their {{tq|1=intention in this conversation was to not only defend myself from his attempt to ban me but explain my previous comments accusing him of nationalist motivations. Like I said above I will bring forward evidence (of which there's plenty)}} (emphasis mine) but never did. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Apprentix has been evading his block using IPs, the one at User talk:Kowal2701/Sabaeans in the Horn of Africa geolocates to his location and there was another one a while back. Perusing exchanges at here this looks very WP:DUCKy, a CU would be good. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Kowal2701, feel free to file an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BasedHistorian PHD. If you can provide diffs that clearly make the connection between MotorolaBoy and Apprentix, you can ask for CU. -- asilvering (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry not at my laptop. Might be able to later. I’ve seen CUs requested in AN threads Kowal2701 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd also suggest CUing them to check if they're {{vandal|Habesha212}}, who also have evaded their block using ips (See this discussion that was started using their IP Talk:Sabaeans in the Horn of Africa#Flagrant misinformation) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = resolved

| result = editor informed. -- asilvering (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|RocketDwiki}}

This might be better suited for the edit warring noticeboard, but User:RocketDwiki is mass-reverting my addition of :Template:Use American English to articles about Californian towns ({{diff2|1297127446|here is example}}). I have asked on their talk page for the reason behind this but all I'm getting is "Please stop randomly mass adding to articles in areas in California that do NOT necessarily use American English." I cannot understand why an article written in American English about an American town should not use American English or does not satisfy MOS:TIES. This noticeboard might be overkill, but I'm not getting an answer and I don't want to start an edit war. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree wholeheartedly with your edits. Tagging {{Ping|EEng|Magnolia677|prefix=|p=}} because they were also involved in the discussion on Rocket's talk page and might want to contribute here. I'd say this is a case of WP:CIR for violating the MOS, however, it's possible that Rocket didn't know about the guidelines. Not an excuse, of course. Have they been warned specifically about the MOS before? » Gommeh (he/him) 20:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::never been warned about the MOS. @Panamitsu should have been more polite in their request and pointed out the guidelines. RocketDwiki (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In general, what MOS:TIES says is that if an article is related to a place that speaks English (US, Canada, India, UK, etc) then you are supposed to use the national variety of English spoken there. This includes spellings (e.g. "color" for US-related articles vs "colour" for UK-related articles) and vocabulary (US "trunk" vs UK "boot" to refer to the part of a car where you put your suitcases). » Gommeh (he/him) 23:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The {{diff2|1297089782|edit summaries of my edits}} all were "add {{Use American English}} template per MOS:TIES" so I assumed that you had read MOS:TIES. When in doubt, please discuss, and please don't make reverts in the middle of a conversation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::RocketDwiki, if you haven't taken the time to find out the appropriate usage of a template, you shouldn't be removing it. It is down to you to look for guidelines before you start messing around with such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Did you have any other issues, Panamitsu, or can we consider this incident resolved? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes it's been resolved I reckon. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|78.81.123.235}}

This IP was previously blocked for two weeks due to persistent violations of WP:RUSUKR after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#78.81.123.235 this] ANI report (they also previously edited under a different IP address which was also blocked for the same reason). I had to give them another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.81.123.235#June_2025 warning] on 15 June because they again made edits related to the topic. They assured me again that they would not make any further edits related to the topic. Despite this, they have continued to make edits that are clearly violations of the restriction. See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vranyo&diff=prev&oldid=1296387201 this] edit on 19 June where they directly reference the war. Another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.81.123.235#Two_issues told] them about the restriction after this edit and just now they made another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_occupation_of_Crimea&curid=71944314&diff=1297151650&oldid=1290915467 edit] to Russian occupation of Crimea that is a blatant violation. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rutte&diff=prev&oldid=1297029261 this] edit for example. I have not taken a look at their other recent edits so there might be more. Mellk (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:My last edit to Russian occupation of Crimea is to clarify the legal case Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2017) and don't reference the war at all. Or, later one, clarify the reference in the same article. It's important for readers. I assure of my adherence to CTOP rules at Wikipedia. And would self-revert if suggested. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::You should self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::* Done at best of my ability. Thank you

:::78.81.123.235 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You did not fully self-revert.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_occupation_of_Crimea&diff=1297157547&oldid=1290915467] You also did not explain the rationale for the other edits that violated the restriction, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rutte&diff=prev&oldid=1297029261 this] edit from yesterday where you changed {{tq|war with Ukraine}} to {{tq|war against Ukraine}}. Mellk (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::And like before, more POV edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zvenigora&diff=prev&oldid=1297173662 Here] you created a piped link for no good reason. Since the IP is still continuing to make edits and has not provided any real assurance that they will stop making edits that violate the restriction (they have done this multiple times before and continued to make such edits), I see no other option than a much longer block this time. I have lost count of how many times they've said they would stop making edits related to the topic only to continue making edits related to the topic. Mellk (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=prev&oldid=1297217604 Another] violation just now. This is despite the ANI report. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Even more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Tribunal_for_the_Crime_of_Aggression_against_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1297452455 violations] now. This is very clearly about the war. Seriously, it does not get any more blatant than this. Mellk (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't understand why 78.81.123.235 doesn't create a named account - for increased anonymity and safety as well as quite likely being able to achieve extended-confirmed status reasonably quickly on topics unrelated to WP:RUSUKR, broadly construed. On the particular article Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which is why I noticed this AN/I entry, I'd personally prefer for 78.81.123.235's edits to not be self-reverted, because they only needed moderate editing and overall are quite useful.{{pb}}@User 78.81.123.235: the Wikipedian community is patient, but not infinitely patient. While the RUSUKR topic is indeed an important one, it's also one that is difficult for the community to manage in terms of edits, so trying to make exceptions in your particular case would be difficult. You've been editing non-anonymously (revealing your IP number) for over 30 days and your edit count looks like it's in the several 100s. If you create a named account, it will be in your personal interest in terms of security, you'll learn a lot of interesting things by editing topics outside of the RUSUKR areas, and it looks like it shouldn't be difficult for you to do 500 non-trivial edits within a month.{{pb}}It looks like you've misunderstood several requests to stop editing in the RUSUKR area broadly construed, so you'd have to make an exceptional effort now to convince others not to block you. You really must read WP:BROADLY. Boud (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I have re-read, WP:BROADLY. Sorry again for not meeting the community trust. As to the rational of war 'against' vs. 'with', for me, non-native speaker, it seems obviously as an grammatical error: 'with' could be understood 'pro', while 'against' is clearly 'contra'.
Really sorry, as jurisprudencial articles are non-exempt from CTOP. Now, it's clear after your thoughtful briefing. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::With this editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy&diff=prev&oldid=1297217604, I was experimenting with new wiki orthography, badly, and was to delete it, but after, it was already reverted. 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry for late response. As Olexandr Dovzhenko and Alexander Dovzhenko spelling are different in the initial letter, my understanding is that spelling convention allows to chose according to the context which it is used. The articles edited were from the List of Ukrainian films, and spelling with initial O seems more appropriate. Thank you 78.81.123.235 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Page protected|1={{nac}} Page protected by The Bushranger. --{{User|Gommeh}}}}

• {{userlinks|MarcinTorun1971}}

MarcinTorun1971 keeps persistently adding unsourced material in articles as can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organized_crime_in_North_Macedonia&diff=prev&oldid=1297153688 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankfurt_mafia&diff=prev&oldid=1297154240 here]. I think they are not the only articles where they add unsourced material. They are also an unresponsive editor, since they have been warned about it before and I also reached out to them on their talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarcinTorun1971&diff=prev&oldid=1296732259 diff]), but they never responded or corrected their conduct. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support a pblock until they can contribute to this discussion and explain themselves. If they don't, it's a WP:CIR case. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Honest question for others -- looking at the history of Frankfurt mafia (as linked by OP), is that vandalism+reversion over and over, or is that an edit war with both sides violating 3RR? I don't disagree that User:MarcinTorun1971 is being disruptive in their edits and non-communication regardless but I'm curious of peoples' thoughts on the distinction. — tony 18:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism. » Gommeh (he/him) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think a better way I could have phrased my question is whether this meets the threshold of obvious vandalism. If it does, WP:AIV is the place to be; if not, then is this an edit war? — tony 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If I violated WP:3RR, I will self-revert, but I do not think I did. The editor is definitely "slow edit warring" and being disruptive, despite me telling them the issues with their edits. It is definitely disruption and violation of WP:V. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It should be noted that edit warring, disruption, and even WP:V violations are not vandalism. This doesn't appear to be vandalism, but, as a search for "Veles crew" turns up absolutely nothing, it does appear to be something likely made up one day. That said, there is no 3RR violation here - both MarcinTorum1971 and StephenMacky1 are at three reverts. I'm going to revert the page to the status quo ante bellum and protect it for a week so this can be disussed on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1={{resolved|1=Blocked by {{noping|Ponyo}}.}}--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after block expired (/64 has been blocked 4 times previously, most recently for 6 months), also see the three previous ANI reports regarding this range (September 2024, September 2024 again, December 2024). Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Kites Are Fun|prev|1297018547|1}}, {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1297018799|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1297019253|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1297019422|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1297019732|5}}. Waxworker (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:The last ranegblock just expired and they're back to the same edits that led to the previous blocks. I've reblocked the /64 for a year.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = blocked

| result = by {{u|Cullen328}}. -- asilvering (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|CrimeFind31}}

User has been persistently engaging in genre warring across multiple articles, without sources, discussions, or consensus. They have received plentiful warnings about this on their talk page, which also include links to WP:GWAR, but they are still continuing their disruptive editing, causing more work for other editors to clean up. Magatta (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Magatta}}, can you please provide diffs and links to previous discussions with the editor? Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Diff of the user's talk page can be found {{Diff|oldid=1296773229|label=here}}. There are discussions from January, February and this month. I'd like to point out that they replied to the one from February saying they'd provide proof supporting their genre changes (diff: {{Diff|oldid=1277023040}}) but have yet to do so satisfactorily using a reliable source, and that they also said they'd proven I Touch Myself to be in the alternative rock genre (diff: {{Diff|oldid=1272959178}}) when they did not. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure. Here is one instance where I left a warning on the user's talk page back in February following a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=If_You_Only_Knew_%28song%29&diff=1277023040&oldid=1277022865 undiscussed insertion of a genre] at If You Only Knew, which was also backed by RYM (an unreliable source) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimeFind31&diff=1277123751&oldid=1273014268]. The user then responded claiming they will have more "proof" the aforementioned song is of that style. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimeFind31&diff=1277136913&oldid=1277123751]

:::Please note that until last week I went off Wikipedia for a while, so I never properly documented a lot of their subsequent edits until recently, but a look at this user's contributions gives a clear track record of their disruptive editing surrounding genres.

:::More recently, about two days ago, the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_You_Much&diff=1296002512&oldid=1286658479] at Miss You Much, which I reverted, and left a level 3 warning on their talk page, advising them to participate in discussion before inserting potentially controversial genres.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimeFind31&diff=1296572357&oldid=1277136913] There was no reply from this user, and five days later, made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digging_Your_Scene&diff=prev&oldid=1296751056 another insertion] at Digging Your Scene, which prompted me to issue a level four warning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimeFind31&diff=1296773229&oldid=1296572357] This also got no response, and most recently, the user made another undiscussed genre insertion at Video Killed the Radio Star.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_Killed_the_Radio_Star&diff=prev&oldid=1297122546], which is why I brought the matter here.

:::Also, this is not my interaction, but User:Doctorhawkes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimeFind31&diff=1272987189&oldid=1258306975 issued a level one warning] to this user back in January, following a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Touch_Myself&diff=1272959178&oldid=1271139831 similar edit] made at I Touch Myself. The user responded saying they "proved" the song was in that style because they believed so, and didn't provide a source, or start a discussion, in order to give other editors a chance to reach consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimeFind31&diff=1273014268&oldid=1272987189] Magatta (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Due to CrimeFind31's persistent addition of unsourced musical genres, I have indefinitely blocked them from editing article space. They have been violating the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. They are free make neutral, well-referenced, formal edit requests on article talk pages. If they want to add a genre, they must provide a reliable source verifying that genre. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Tygx}}

After consensus were reached at Talk:Girls Will Be Girls (EP) by me and @Chyx1095, Tygx started another discussion on the same talk page in an attempt to overturn the consensus by persistently pushing their views through rehashing their earlier rejected arguments. Their version was not accepted, yet they continued engaging in behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies on disruptive editing (WP:IDHT) and harassment (WP:HARASSMENT).

I repeatedly warned Tygx to stop pushing the issue and to respect the consensus, and also clearly warned them to stop pinging me. These warnings were ignored.

Given Tygx's continued refusal to respect consensus, persistent disruptive editing and talk page behavior, ignoring multiple formal warnings, and ongoing harassment via pings, I request intervention and believe that a temporary block is warranted. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I just read through the discussion, and it's not quite as clear as Paper9oll sets out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please feel free to go over the discussion on the talk page of Girls Will Be Girls (EP), and you will that see we agreed on a lot of the points raised. At the moment, I am only flagging an ambiguous sentence in the first paragraph that needs to be reviewed. I have not edited the article recently or harassed anyone, these are false claims. It appears that @Chyx1095 and Paper9oll are teaming up and being overly protective of the article. They reverted every edit made, which seems unfair. Tygx (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

: I don't see any issue here apart from a content dispute, and I have to say I am unimpressed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGirls_Will_Be_Girls_%28EP%29&diff=1297172613&oldid=1297168113 this] threatening message from the OP. I am even more unimpressed with Talk:Girls_Will_Be_Girls_(EP)#Writing, where the OP closed a discussion themselves in which they were 2v1 opposed to Tygx with the statement "Consensus passed with super majority". There's more than a hint of WP:OWN and the OP needs to take a good long look at their own behaviour here. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Feel free to unclose the discussion if the closure lacking. I am not "owning" this page; I simply stated my point and, in my view, there was consensus with approximately 2.5 out of 3 supporters. Proper venues like 3O or DRN remains open thereafter, but for reasons unknown to me, wasn't exercised. Instead, I was met with repeated pinging despite explicitly stating multiple times that I was stepping back and requesting the pinging stop—hence the tone of that message. If this is not harassment, then I don't know what is. Likewise, if calling me "pathetic" on the same talk page is not a clear personal attack, then I don't know what is. If a temp block is overkill, then I believe a formal warning from an admin would be justified to stop such persistent harassing behaviour and get the message across. I also acknowledge that my "threatening" message on the talk page may have come across as strong, however considering the situation, gotten too hot-headed. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I am slightly bemused that an experienced editor like yourself thought it was OK not only to close a discussion in which you had commented multiple times, but to close it in your favour as a "supermajority" when there were only three editors discussing it. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Reverted the closure. My judgment stands that there was a clear majority in favor of the change among those who participated. Uninvolved venues like 3O or DRN have been available from the start and remain open to anyone seeking further input from uninvolved editors. For my part, I do not intend to engage further in content discussion on this issue, as I have stated multiple times. Accordingly, I do not expect any further pings from Tygx regarding this exact topic or variations thereof, having already explicitly requested that the pings stop. If there are still concerns, I encourage the use of appropriate dispute resolution venues. I am, however, fine with being pinged by uninvolved editors should they require my input. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 20:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Three editors can barely be a majority, much less a supermajority. In fact, if this closure was 1-2, I'd say that was hardly even a consensus and it could be challenged at any point. I was curious about this but when I went looking to see if there was any discussion on policy pages about "supermajorities", I just found Wikipedia:Supermajority which is a failed proposal from 2006. So, I think claiming a "supermajority" that has some special authority has no basis in Wikipedia policy unless you can find some mention about it that I have missed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just to clarify, I used the term simply to indicate there was clear support among the participating editors, in the plain dictionary sense. I’ll avoid that wording in the future and use something simpler. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There's a better idea than that: do not close discussions in which you're a participant. It's always good practice to have an uninvolved editor close.

That being said, there's a perfectly good word to indicate clear support: "majority." Ravenswing 05:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::To be fair, I'm not sure why the above replies are focused on berating Paper9oll's conduct, when this is about Tygx's harassment. Regardless how the matter was conducted by Paper9oll, it does not justify Tygx's constant pinging, especially when Paper9oll had requested for them to stop and provided the justification. Tygx can either wait for other editors to comment or request for other editors for their opinions, instead of harassing us to change our prior decision. Additionally, after previous consensus had passed and the changes were implemented, nothing is stopping Tygx from editing per WP:BOLD if they find it justified to correct that single statement. If any other editors (Paper9oll and myself included) find that it's not an improvement, it'll be corrected accordingly, or reverted and brought to discussion again. There is absolutely no reason for Tygx to constantly ping us. Correct me if I'm wrong. — Chyx1095 (🗣️ • 📜) 16:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Because three long-term, respected admins examined the matter and found that it wasn't as clear-cut as all of that, and because the conduct of any participant editor is liable for review at ANI, not just the ones posters prefer we focus on. Ravenswing 17:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I understand that. But while the OP's conduct might have been unacceptable, is it right for "three long-term, respected admins" to disregard the behaviour of the reported participant editor? It takes two hands to clap. As I said, there is absolutely no reason for Tygx to constantly ping us, especially when they have repeatedly been told to stop, "threatening" or not. I'm not sure if this matter has been looked at objectively as to what would have led to an experienced editor to act as such. — Chyx1095 (🗣️ • 📜) 16:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Userlinks|GRocasFan2024}}

GRocasFan2024 has been continuously been violating WP:NPA by posting swear words and even middle finger emojis to other users who are posting vandalism warnings. See their edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GRocasFan2024&action=history, most egregriously Special:Diff/1293882691.

Plenty of users have warned them for their edits since April and they have been continuing to make these edits; only recently has it gotten much worse. The warning in April didn't get a reply, and the one in May got a polite "sorry" reply. However, the replies this month are very rude and violate WP:NPA.

This continued aggression has been getting very inappropriate and I believe a permanent block with no talk page access is warranted. MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Since the last offensive reply (10 days ago) Gro... seems to have been a productive editor, and there are no reverts in the last 50 edits. While the behavior was unacceptable, the user appears to have reformed. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so blocking at this time doesn't seem appropriate to me. If the behavior recurs, sure, but not now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear from User:GRocasFan2024. Wikipedia has kind of a wishy-washy attitude about "swear words". If it's a personal attack, they are usually sanctioned. But swear words used in isolation, as an expression of frustration? Well, some of our editors who've been around the longest have used them so it doesn't seem fair to censor new editors but allow longtimers to let the expletives fly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :As the target of said profanity and bird, I took no offense as I was only trying to help correct their expectations about sourcing and writing articles (and there would be no block from me since I'm not an admin). They're improving and need some guidance, and I've had no issues with them since. Nathannah • 📮 02:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Liz}}, I agree with your overall point and wish that all editors of whatever experience level would refrain from emphasizing their points with F-bombs. However, it is a rare longtimer who would write {{tpq|JUST BLOCK ME FOR EDITING IF YOU FUCKING WANT!!!!!!!!!! I DON’T FUCKING CARE!!!!!!!!!!}} followed by the predictable emoji. All caps. Twenty exclamation marks. Given the editor's chosen topic area, there may be a question of maturity involved. {{u|GRocasFan2024}}, this is a collaborative project. Please refrain from angry profane outbursts if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Thanks. {{u|Nathannah}}, thank you for your mature response. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have seen longtimers post messages like that in the past. But it was on their way out, leaving Wikipedia in their wake. Comments like that are hard to come back from. Editors who encounter them don't easily forget explosions of harsh words. So, I guess it's a question of how much ROPE to offer. Being called to ANI is often enough to scare editors straight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:As the person who warned GRocasFan2024 almost 2 weeks ago for incivility after they responded to a warning for disruptive editing at 2 articles with a middle finger emoji directed at myself, I agree with Nathannah that I have had no issues since my warning. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{Userlinks|JaylonN}}

JaylonN has been making a series of edits to pages, largely for awards shows, that violate various manual of style rules, including WP:OVERLINK. They also break tables and templates in their edits. They have been warned multiple times, including a final warning, and have not responded to any of them. They do not use edit reasons to explain what they are doing. I reported this user to AIV and it was suggested to me that I bring the report in here instead. I'm also pinging {{ping|livelikemusic}}, who has also been reverting JaylonN's edits and made five of the seven warnings on their talk page. Doc Strange (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, Doc Strange,

:Did you read the instructions at the top of this page? Among other points, it states {{tq|Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem}}. It's hard to judge this complaint when you have provided no examples of behavior that you find disruptive. If you expect editors to go out and find all of this on their own, you probably will be waiting a long time for a response. It's the filer's responsibility to lay out an easy-to-understand and compelling case and that includes diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Well, they received this warning (13:53, 24 June 2025) and this warning (15:26, 24 June 2025) concerning the Manual of Style and then went on to make this edit (08:41, 25 June 2025), ignoring the warnings. Perhaps there might be a competence issue at play here with this user? Their refusal to acknowledge any warning on their talk page is alarming, as well, and their non-response to this AN/I filing is telling. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, it's been a while since I've made an ANI report. Here's a couple examples of the examples I have:

• 62nd Annual Grammy Awards: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=62nd_Annual_Grammy_Awards&diff=1297189142&oldid=1281651231 here], they don't seem to understand that WP:OVERLINK is a rule even though they've been warned about the manual of style - there is no specific warning explaining why you shouldn't link every single time an artist's name is mentioned. There are several different edits here, which seem to indicate they are not using the preview option and are making different edits for everything they want to do. There are many, many instances over the course of their edits.
• BET Awards 2025: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BET_Awards_2025&diff=1294835213&oldid=1294834900 More overlink]], just as an example. Failure to understand WP:OVERLINK despite multiple warnings and reverts is a repeat issue with this user's edits.
• 54th Annual Grammy Awards: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=54th_Annual_Grammy_Awards&diff=1297246194&oldid=1288514249 Here], they make several more edits, including something that breaks a table and causes the bottom portion of the article to be messed up because they did not include a div col end.

All of their edits have no edit summaries, which makes it difficult to parse what they are doing They have not responded to any of the many warnings about these issues on their talk page. Their edit history is voluminous, and largely seems to be on these award show accounts. I don't think this is single purpose account territory, but it comes awful close to one.Livelikemusic has covered some of the other basic issues here with this user's edits. Doc Strange (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)