Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pete Buttigieg edit suppression

{{User10|Aaron geo}}
They've been editing Indian film related articles and very persistent in addition of uncited/unreliable box office figures into articles for a while. They were blocked last week for 31 hours by {{u|Ad Orientem}} but resumed disruptive editing right after end of block. Their talk page is littered with warnings and notices, and seems like a WP:ROPE to me. I suggest a topic ban from film articles or a longer block. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_geo&diff=prev&oldid=1286405540 Personal attacks] too. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Can you translate that, {{u|Benison}}? Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Cullen328, it goes like "hey you Beni, you've been saying you will block me for a while now. If you block me, can't I survive on my own, you sneaky pig?"(roughly from Malayalam)
Not the first guy to call me that and I don't care, but NPA is applicable. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, {{u|Benison}}, that was an unacceptable insult, but it was just before their 31 hour block. Their only substantive post-block edit was to cite the Times of India, which is admittedly a poor source for show business content, but not really a blockable offense, I don't think. Other administrators may have a different view. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Mr I have been doing my job efficiently and correctly,editing many articles from past two years. I was editing the collection of the movie after carefully observing many trackers figures, who are closely working in the movie industry. Many of my edits were reverted by Beni because of unnecessary reasons. Aaron geo (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::hey beni stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself Aaron geo (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Aaron geo}}, are you aware that the Times of India is a dubious source, especially for show business topics? Have you read WP:TIMESOFINDIA? Are you aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are required to assume good faith regarding your fellow editors? Are you aware that it is unacceptable to call another editor a "sneaky pig" in any language, and that you should communicate in English on the English Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah I am aware of all of this and also I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia. Aaron geo (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{u|Aaron geo}}, that remark is a non sequitur which is not responsive to the substance of this discussion. Please try again. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia. Aaron geo (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Aaron geo}} You have still not answered Cullen328's questions. Please do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:┌───────────────────────────┘
@Aaron geo, Your response is awaited, please. — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:ICTFSOURCES is pretty straightforward and crystal clear in terms of the sources to be used in Indian film articles. The table there has been rewamped (by me last year), even color coded, so that even newbies can understand and use those wisely. Additionally, notices and hidden text also has been places in the articles to guide the editors on using reliable sources. But Aaron geo conveniently ignores it all, as clearly evident from their edits. They have been notified of it earlier too. I'm almost assuming a WP:CIR here. — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy Aaron geo (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Rewamped? EEng 10:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::EEng, Revamped*. I had changed the layout of the entire table and color coded it for easier understanding last year. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Too bad. Rewamped would be a great word for something. EEng 20:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::rewamp, v., transitive, to add a further amusing comment; “as is his style, {{u|EEng}} rewamped ANI, this time including a cleverly captioned picture” ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Given their lack of response, I have pblocked Aaron geo from articlespace until they acknowledge the concerns about their editing and address the questions posed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I was not well from last few days,so I didn't resy. I deeply regret my mistakes and will try to be more respectful Aaron geo (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I didn't really know that Times of India was not an adequate source. I am just an amateur trying to edit these because of passion towards the field Aaron geo (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• C-Ban given their replies here which are merely highlighting the broader issues. (I.e., that they're currently blocked from editing article space, which is the one thing we are here to do and is thereby literally prevented from being here to help, or their "sneaky pig" comment from before the block, or the mass of unsourced additions. All of which is sufficient to indef over anyway, I suspect.) But responses such as {{blue|stop playing the victim card and also understand that the world doesn't revolve around you. You are a doctor and you are really proud of it. Keep it to yourself}}, {{blue|I am aware of the burger king incident which happened because of wikipedia}}, {{blue|i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia}}, {{blue|i am just pointing out at your great Wikipedia}} and {{blue|Ok Beni bro, you can carry on your work. Ok happy}} are not just what Cullen328 (very politely, I think!) called non sequiturs, but uncivil, aspersive and frankly tangential to the point of baffling incomprehensibility. Either this is for their amusement, or there is a language barrier; in any case, either we are being trolled or WP:CIR applies.{{pb}}I see no upside to our allowing this user to remain part of the community, and as far as preventing future disruption and saving editors and admins a ton of time and trouble, a whole lot of reasons not to. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think that the existing block placed by Bushranger is going to be adequate here.—Alalch E. 20:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Their answers do not unfortunately fill me with confidence regarding CIR. But, we'll see. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm half-tempted to look for a revision to the MOS to forbid bloody box office figures in infoboxes. They're almost all pure prognostication it seems. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That aside, given they have returned and are engaging, even if...well, per Fortuna, I'm inclined to lift the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Per WP:ROPE, I have lifted the pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Simonm223, I'd totally support that. It's such a huge headache every single time. Aargh. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Wlaak}}

Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI. The situation, from my point of view:

• Wlaak made a number of edits to the "Name & Identity" section earlier this month, which was partly reverted. A quite long discussion between Wlaak and three other editors was ongoing, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1285911281 this] being the last version for a while.
• Note: Among these three other editors, one have been in a dispute (DRN, ANI) with Wlaak prior to this. And so have I.
• I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928 a comment] on the recent additions, suggesting that most of it was WP:OR (or irrelevant). I further suggested that WP:RS secondary sources would be preferable. One of the third party users (i.e. not involved in similar disputes before) agreed;
• I reverted most of it suggesting that new proposals should be discussed first (while avoiding WP:SYNTH and relying on secondary WP:RS).
• Wlaak restored it.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292 I clarifed] that my initial comment served as a suggestion and notified all users involved; both third party users agreed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286594907&oldid=1286591683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563] and one added further suggestions, which I agreed to. I once again suggested that any new proposals should be on secondary WP:RS discussed first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286744356&oldid=1286742824 here].
• Wlaak restored it again, which is disruptive behaviour in my opinion. Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Pinging @Asilvering and @Robert McClenon as the users that if I recall correctly have tried to meditate the previous versions of this dispute. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• As Sesquilinear says, I tried to mediate an earlier version of this dispute. This is a content dispute that is worsened by allegations of conduct, and I think that the allegations of conduct are persistent enough that they are a conduct problem. I usually start dealing with a content dispute by asking the parties what specific paragraphs and sentences they want to change in an article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). I will ask that question at this point. If there are straight answers, maybe progress can be made toward resolving the content dispute. If there aren't straight answers, then maybe we should consider a topic-ban again. What exactly does each editor want to change in an article (or leave the same)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Hi, again:
• :I want the section to remain as it is and not be removed because the statements from three consecutive Patriarchates, Mor Ignatius Aphrem I Barsoum, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, and a 2015 Publication from the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, represent the official position of the Syriac Orthodox Church, not private views. The Patriarch presides over the Holy Synod, which is the highest authority in the Church, and his statements define the Church’s religious, spiritual, and administrative matters (see the article itself), hence they are more than relevant to be included in the section. Primary sources are valid to use here because they are clearly attributed according to WP:ACCORDINGTO, and they concern the Church’s official definition of its own identity. I was adding secondary sources as well to strengthen the section, but this process has been halted because two ANI cases, one of which was reopened after being closed, were filed against me instead of following the normal process through a Request for Comment.
• :If there are concerns about WP:UNDUE, additional sourced material about the Assyrian identity can be added, as I stated on the talk page. The article already mentions the use of the Assyrian name by parishes in America, the ethnic composition including both Syriac-Arameans and Assyrians, and the former neutrality stance of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I, hence I asked another editor to provide the source of a Assyrian favorable position. Wlaak (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Wlaak, this is going rather beyond @Robert McClenon's ask, at least as I understand it. To understand what the content dispute is, we don't (yet) need to know the whys and wherefores, explanations of anyone's behaviour, or any of that. At this point we're just trying to understand what the basic terms of the argument are. "I want the section under the heading Foo to say 'blah, blah'." "I want it to remain like it was in diff x." "I want to add this particular quote to this particular section." That sort of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::User:Asilvering - First, you have correctly restated what my usual question is. Second, it is true that User:Wlaak went beyond answering my question. However, they did answer my question in the first sentence, and so the extra words can be disregarded. They did say that they want to leave the article as it is. I haven't seen a concise statement by User:Shmayo as to what they want to change in the article. They have said that maybe WP:ANI rather than DRN or RFC is the forum that they want, but I don't understand what they are saying is either the content issue or the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Aha okay, sorry @Robert McClenon for misunderstanding. In that case: I want the section to remain as it is right now. Wlaak (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Robert McClenon, I brought this to ANI as a conduct issue (which I attempted to highlight in bold). My intention was not to discuss the content of the Syriac Orthodox Church article here; if content discussion is necessary, the other editors should be notified as well. In my initial post, I provided links containing my suggestion for the section "Name and identity": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292]. To summarize my suggestion, if still relevant to this case: 1. Merge or remove content related to "stance" of Aphrem I Barsoum, depending of relevance. If relevant, it should solely be based on secondary WP:RS. I agree with the third-party editor, who suggested that "statements" from individual patriarchs is not relevant and should be excluded. 2. Remove paragraphs concerning the "stance" of the other two patriarchs (per WP:NOR and suggestion from third-party editor). 3. If anything, it should include the Synod's statement (without WP:SYNTH). 4. Rely on secondary WP:RS, avoiding any further WP:OR. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&oldid=1286743556 This] version should serve as basis. Shmayo (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Note:

• A WP:TBAN was suggested here less than a month ago, but closed with no consensus. The user has also been recommended not to edit within this topic area here.

Shmayo (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• :See the previous closed ANI filed, no consensus was reached for you to delete everything in the section. I took in feedback from the three other.
• :the other editor who I was in a dispute with unarchived the ANI, he was initially in favor of my edits, in which he himself contributed to and added a quote which you were against.
• :the edits i had made was in no sense rejected by the other editors until you came, I worked with the feedback given, hence another editor then said "Thank you, it looks much better."
• :you came in, gave feedback in which most was incorporated, your points were:
• :to remove "stands as the latest formal statement regarding the ethnic identity of the Church's faithful" (WP:SYNTH), this was done.
• :you said to merge the paragraph of Mor Ignatius Aphrem I and to remove the quote, in which two editors (me and the other editor who unarchived a ANI) agreed upon having, nevertheless, this was done as well.
• :despite this, you came back a few days later, without the intent to help implement your own feedback, but to delete nearly the entire section, which had no consensus whatsoever, i then restored it. that is not disruptive editing.
• :you said to highlight the Holy Synod statement, this was also done.
• :you also made feedback on using WP:RS, in which has been incorporated in the first paragraph but stopped after the other editor had unarchived a settled ANI for the third time, being disruptive and halting the development of the section.
• :5h ago, a reply to the article was made stating "I am proposing for a WP:RFC, It seems we are unable to establish consensus regarding this, any inputs from a third party editor would be really appreciated." indicating that there was no established consensus for you to delete the entire section, this was said from the editor you quoted to have agreed with you, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563 this], he stated it would be better of without the quote, which was done.
• :you took the other editors words as a final say, with no chance at discussion nor reasoning, what you and one other person agrees with, is not consensus if the other parties object to it or haven't agreed with it.
• :you also said that you'd have to file for a RfC, not a ANI, this is not fitting and is a unnecessary process which could be handled with a RfC.
• :i'd want to request a TBAN on Shamyo as well, not out of revenge but since if these are the grounds for him to request a TBAN on me on, I feel there is a lot of ground in which Shmayo should get a TBAN, I must note that out of awareness to WP:NPOV, a TBAN should be on both parties.
• :you have been accused of having been anti-Aramean name on following, see this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (goes back all the way to 2008). Looking at your global contributions, it all seems to be on Aramean-related articles, and not in a way of contributing with edits but rather only objecting in talk pages, filing ANI's etc. this raises doubts whether if your objection is with the content or the Aramean ethnic identity.
• :for any third party admin or resolver, please see the archived thread (by another editor who has been opposing the Aramean name, both him and Shamyo being Assyrian WikiPedians per their user talk pages) in which I detailed my defense/response, see that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1287490212 here].
• :the Syriac Orthodox Church just got its peer-review review and constantly involving me in ANI's (only filed by Assyrian WikiPedians, Shmayo and the other editor) is disruptive and hinders me from contributing to, in this case, the peer-review. Wlaak (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:this is not a Aramean vs. Assyrian related topic, it is a Church and I am not compromising the Assyrian name for the Aramean name, which the warning was about (see the warning issued by admin on ANI you referenced).

:a TBAN was not closed without consensus, majority was against and latest comment was "Any sanction should be two-way." since the other editor had POV and following Aramean related edits, please refrain from twisting things. Wlaak (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::While it's true that the latest comment stated that TBAN should likely be two-way, I'll note that such a ban, had it happened, would have been "The Levant, broadly construed"; topic bans are generally broadly construed in order to avoid such arguments over whether an edit "really" counts. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Wlaak, I find this statement of yours somewhat disingenuous when I find an extended discussion about whether the article should or shouldn't be in WP:Assyria on the talk page. (If this was brought up in the previous ANI thread, my apologies for overlooking it in all the diffs.) This is absurdly tendentious behaviour and I'd like to commend {{u|CF-501 Falcon}} in particular for handling that with far more patience than I would have been capable of. I cannot believe that whether a particular article ought to be in a particular wikiproject was nearly the question of an RfC. If the editors of a wikiproject say the article is in scope, it's in scope. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::already discussed in article page Wlaak (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the history of Syriac Orthodox Church to try to determine why User:Shmayo is alleging disruptive editing or other conduct issues by User:Wlaak. I don't understand what the issue is, unless Shmayo is claiming ownership of Syriac Orthodox Church and so considers four reverts in two weeks to be disruptive. I have not read through all the details of the discussion on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church, nor the details of what was being reverted. I have seen enough to see that there is a content dispute, and that there has been some reverting that hardly comes anywhere close to being an edit war. Is User:Shmayo just throwing spaghetti at a wall, or can they state concisely what they think has been the conduct issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Reviewing the few diffs that I provided in my original post would have been useful to determine what I refer to as disruptive behaviour. I never mentioned an edit war; I do not want to engage in one. Now, what I consider disruptive or tendentious:

::*I listed my suggestions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1285882769&oldid=1285851928] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286591683&oldid=1286520292], endorsed by impartial editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286594907&oldid=1286591683] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286643170&oldid=1286596563], but was reverted twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286222895&oldid=1286217815] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Orthodox_Church&diff=1286747680&oldid=1286743556]; user ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

::*The user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT; fails to understand why other editors are stressing WP:NOR, the few example I gave were quickly "corrected", which obviously is not the point here.

::*Views edits as taking sides [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1286882756],

::If the diffs provided in my first bullet does not indicate disruptive behaviour or WP:STONEWALLing, I have nothing else to add here. Shmayo (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::See the current version, what you got consensus on was to remove the quote, which was done. I had challenged the removal of all other Patriarchates and argued for why they are important, the article itself states that the Patriarch "is the general administrator to Holy Synod and supervises the spiritual, administrative, and financial matters of the church."

:::I may be new to WikiPedia, but what you and one other editor may agree on, with me disagreeing and others not participating in said question is not consensus.

:::Although, the thing you seem to have had one person to agree with you on (the removal of Patriarchates) seem to not have gone by the other editor who stated: "Alright. That's okay, now the next paragraph which starts with "Although the church is not ethnically exclusive..." needs some formatting. I kinda feel something's wrong or it's not in the correct place in that section."

:::Your removal had no consensus, yet you pushed it, we were fine with it until you came and brought this to attention which later was implemented (quote, RS) and were set to move to the next paragraphs until you and the other WikiPedian part of your project, what I find disruptive, constantly file ANIs. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Robert McClenon, I agree with you that the diffs do not look particularly bad. I think you will change your mind once you read the discussion on the talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the discussion at the article talk page that User:Shmayo and User:asilvering have advised me to read. I agree that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. That doesn't answer the question of what should be done next. User:Shmayo has also asked that question without answering it. They wrote: {{tq|Reporting Wlaak due to, what I believe is, disruptive editing at Syriac Orthodox Church. I initially suggested DRN or RfC, but this is probably an issue for ANI}}. Why not try RFC? Not every case of POV pushing requires sanctions. I haven't reviewed the past record in sufficient detail to determine whether Shmayo is also pushing a point of view, except that their choice to go to WP:ANI without attempting a content dispute resolution is in itself suggestive that they would rather make allegations than present reliable sources to a Request for Comments.
• I am cautious when a filer apparently prefers to discuss conduct before making an effort to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Recurring disruptive behaviour should however, which I think is the case. WP:Third opinion is a way of solving a content dispute. I did recommend DRN or RfC as a next step, one answer suggested ANI, and I agreed that it was probably right to report what I believed was disruptive behaviour. One user (excluding opinions expressed elsewhere) seems to agree, whereas your assessment of it is "POV pushing". Is there any outstanding question for me as the filer? Shmayo (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::what is disruptive? four reverts in two weeks is not disruptive, this is the second ANI regarding this article, with no development, a RfC would be better, what is disruptive here in my opinion is the fact that there has constantly been ANI's filed preventing one from further developing WikiPedia.

:::@Robert McClenon even on the List of Aramean kings article, Shmayo seemed to have deleted the entire article stating no sources are referenced, instead of trying to put sources, (similiar to the Syriac Orthodox Church, where he deleted the entire section of Aramean mentions) he decides to delete the entire article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Aramean_kings&diff=1272178126&oldid=1259140763]

:::constant removals [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tur_Abdin&diff=prev&oldid=1157132837][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrians_in_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=1079412266][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram_Rehob&diff=prev&oldid=1274245611][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_Assyrians&diff=prev&oldid=1077069195](even images of Arameans are removed), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&diff=prev&oldid=1083627117][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mhallami&diff=prev&oldid=1100344975][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nouri_Iskandar&diff=prev&oldid=1193390949](even removes Syriac mentionings), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%BCtersloh&diff=prev&oldid=1277386874], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrians_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=1067841992], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Mourad&diff=prev&oldid=912012123], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0dil&diff=prev&oldid=890153438] of Aramean mentionings throughout Aramean-related articles, since 2008 is disruptive. (these are just the ones taken from his talk page)

:::how long is Shmayo going to get away with this? 14 years and counting. Wlaak (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Wlaak, please consider this from the perspective of the other editors for a moment: they've been carrying on as normal for quite some time, and then suddenly you appear and start dozens of extremely wordy pov-pushing arguments. It's not them who are being disruptive. This isn't a statement about the issue at stake - it's entirely possible that you're correct on the merits in this content dispute - but how you've gone about it. I've suggested it before and will reiterate it: you will have a much better and more successful time trying to get anywhere with this dispute if you walk away from it now, gain more editing experience out of this topic area, and return to it later. -- asilvering (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::english is not my first language, me wording things in a manner of what you think is POV is not my intent, i am not pushing any edits that are POV, although i can understand that you feel i am pushing POV in talk-pages.

:::::when did i "suddenly" appear? if you are talking about to WikiPedia, these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic, for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it is, in my opinion not "pov-pushing". everybody pushes a POV, it seems as the POV-pushes from Shmayo and the other editor is of no interest to you? does this only apply to me?

:::::i have been carrying on, i left the changing of Assyrian to Syriac (not even Aramean), as you warned both of us in the previous ANI to, however, even me going to a Church article, improving what was already stated, not compromising any names, i still get followed by other parties.

:::::i am geniounly curious, do you not see the suppression of the Aramean name on WikiPedia?

:::::if you are seeing this as POV, then certainly it is not one-way, but rather two-way.

:::::i am not so active in the topic anymore, i am only maintaining the articles (if i see any POV edit as in the case remove/compromise certain names, i revert and advise to go to talk page), other than that i am working on my draft. Wlaak (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::can you cite some of my words which are "extremely wordy pov-pushing", i am curious to see how it looks like/what to not push/write. Wlaak (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Wlaak, look how long your comments are. Whether you intend this or not, the effect is to basically wear down everyone else involved in the discussion until they go away and you "win". As for pov-pushing, {{tq|for too long the Aramean name has been neglected on WikiPedia and me coming and challenging edits that is further neglecting it}}, given the contours of this dispute specifically, is a clear expression of pov-pushing. (In most other topic areas, "this topic is neglected on wikipedia" is not pov-pushing.) Again, for all I know, your pov is systematically undervalued on Wikipedia and this needs to be addressed, but "my cause is righteous" is not a good defense here. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I strongly urge you to go work in another topic area for now. You're picking up a lot of bad habits from working in a contentious topic, and I'm increasingly worried that you will be indefinitely blocked or community banned. You cannot fix the problem of Aramean invisibility on wikipedia if you are blocked. Please reconsider your approach. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::okay, thank you for your understanding. i will refrain from further edit any articles (if not reverting obvious changes that compromise one name for the other, if that is allowed).

::::::::i will stick to working on my draft and see other topics i find interesting Wlaak (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've been following this discussion from a distance and have glanced over Wlaak's contributions while this report is in progress. The user seems to have an unusual tendency to eliminate or replace any mention to Assyrians with their own WP:OR, often ignoring WP:RS that support Assyrian identity. A clear example of this occurred just several hours ago as a matter of fact: Wlaak removes a reliable academic source that distinctly supports Shamoun Hanne Haydo's Assyrian identity (see the referenced source, I checked it [https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ3UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58]), replacing "Assyrian" with "Syriac" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&diff=1288461529&oldid=1288402743] by citing unknown websites as a main source such as [https://www.kemalyalcin.com/yazilar/suryaniler-seyfo-ve-semun-hanne-haydo/]. Apparently Wlaak has been engaged in this tendentious erasure of Assyrian in the article since March, indicating this behavior is not new or even limited to this specific article if you look at their contributions in general. It's not just English Wikipedia either; I know these are different projects, but it's telling that in one project they've been blocked for similar editing patters like in en-wiki [https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Bidrag/Wlaak], and in another they apparently tried to remove mention of Assyrians from the Assyrian genocide article there [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrische_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=69256637], [https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrische_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=69256847]. Wlaak’s main focus of editing in en-wiki/elsewhere within various articles is basically to erase the word Assyrian and replace it with Arameans or Syriacs.

:On the whole, I'd say with certainty that this a tendentious one purpose account mostly dedicated to erasing Assyrian mention, violating policies in the process such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and so on. I don't think this topic or even Wikipedia in general benefits from Wlaak's contributions, in fact, it's the opposite. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac. [https://www.kemalyalcin.com/yazilar/suryaniler-seyfo-ve-semun-hanne-haydo/] is a Turkish source writing of his biography book, it is actually the website of the author of the book about him [https://www.librarything.com/author/yalcinkemal]. I have not erased the term "Assyrian", regarding the Dutch page, I was restoring a undiscussed move, or at least that is what I thought, we discussed the matter on my talk page and it seems as it was not a discussed move only done on 27th of March but goes back further than that, the reason I did not see the earlier version was, as a editor pointed out on my talk page, it was mistakingly labeled "minor", thus I oversaw it. No worries, I have no issues with leaving it as it is.

::Since my warning, I have not compromised any names in favor of the other, you using the article Shamoun Hanne Haydo is absurd to me, I was reverting what a specific user (dedicated to war-related articles between Kurds and Assyrians) did on the article, he had previously been blocked as a sockpuppet and compromised the Syriac name for the Assyrian one, by removing the Syriac sources for the Assyrian ones. Wlaak (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{talk quote|Shamoun Hanne Haydo had already been listed as Syriac, I was restoring the edit a person made, where he compromised the name Syriac for Assyrian, despite all current sources stated Syriac.}}

:::That's just not true, I don’t know how else to say it. If you check the article history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamoun_Hanne_Haydo&action=history&offset=&limit=100], you'll see that Haydo's background has always stirred up reverts among users; it’s never really been settled. There are no recent sock edits in the article as far as I can tell, you can't revert somebody for socking if they aren't an active sock. The reliable modern scholarly source I pointed out supports an Assyrian background [https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ3UDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58], you can't deny this.

:::@Asilvering, @Robert McClenon I wonder what others outside this topic think of Wlaak's response above, is it encouraging to you? Because I personally see reoccurring red flags which isn't helped by their recent behavior; apparently (and Robert McClenon seems to have seen this) Wlaak has been taking strange ownership of articles and then lecturing users on their talk pages in a really condescending way. It’s just cringeworthy to read Wlaak's comments in this discussion (link). It's also odd how they lecture about "consensus" during that discussion when they think it aligns with their perspective, yet in the same breath, they have no problem altering long-standing consensus versions of several other articles without having a consensus. Lastly, Wlaak also appeared to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren,_Midyat&diff=prev&oldid=1289149074 canvass] a single edit IP to vote in a discussion Wlaak opened (btw the discussion is again about the same subject they're so adamant to push [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_6#Syriacs]). Doesn’t all this raise some eyebrows? Are we sure we want to give this user that much rope, only for them to likely end up in ANI again? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::One is allowed to edit an article, after it having been edited to Syriac, per the majority of sources (and now a academic source), it was later changed by another editor using a pro-Assyrian website (Hujada) as source and one other source, overlooking the majority of sources stating Syriac.

::::What ownership? I noticed for 30 minutes edits from a IP came in after a edit from a Wiki User, it changed the lead, the Name & Identity etc.

::::"Canvass", no the IP asked if there is a possibility of changing the redirect, I informed him that there is a open discussion regarding it... what's wrong with that?

::::All this feels like a coordinated attack on me, few hours after you commented your first comment, another editor with a brand new account came a few hours later and accused me of harassing him via mail... Wlaak (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Alright you just refuse to accept any wrongdoing whatsoever, at any rate, I don’t plan to have a pointless back and forth with you seeing the rest of bludgeoning. I don’t know any of the users in this discussion btw, and for you to make “coordinated attack” accusations based on no real evidence is disappointing but not surprising, to me at least. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nobody is free from having done wrongs, both parties in this ANI are guilty of wrongdoing. You also accused me of "soliciting votes" from a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:G%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren,_Midyat&diff=prev&oldid=1289149074] but failed to include that the IP asked if he could change the redirect, in which I said if you are in favor of it, there is a discussion, is that soliciting votes? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AG%C3%BCng%C3%B6ren%2C_Midyat&diff=1289132341&oldid=1289105485] Wlaak (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Wlaak I have a quick question for you, @KhndzorUtogh bringing up the IP address on the opened discussion leaves me wondering something. I’ve noticed that a few times now, you seem to attract a number of IP addresses that randomly show up out of nowhere to support or encourage your stance on disputes, only for them to never be seen again. This has happened quite a few times now:

:::::* Back when you were discussing create a separate Aramean people page in March, this Swedish IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:AA1:1155:FC18:9944:9162:7DB0:36F3] made one comment opposing @Shmayo and was never seen again

:::::* This Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A420:230:B950:A5AE:11B4:1226:4D2C] made two comments, one supporting your argument and another about Shmayo. Like the above, they were never seen again

:::::* This other Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A420:276:3CA8:AD08:C33B:7F4F:8274] took part in the discussion, supporting your arguments and agreeing with you - they were never seen on any other part of Wikipedia

:::::* Yet another Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:3031:205:D594:605A:B99F:F54F:7D87] left a message on your talk page with suggestions on your current Draft:Aramean people

:::::* On Güngören, Midyat, once again another Dutch IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A45F:ADD7:1:90A7:E295:5880:604C] shows up out of nowhere agreeing with you and asking if they can change the redirect, which you've opened a discussion for

:::::It's not that this happens frequently, but it's certainly been noticeable that I wanted to bring it up. What make's matters more suspicious is that no IPs have appeared to oppose the Aramean arguments you make in support of Assyrian or other identities. Can you explain the sudden emergence of these IP addresses? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::To be honest, I have zero idea. However, the latest one from Güngören, Midyat had already been active in the talk page as of last year, I replied to him saying I was agreeing with him. He then became active again.

::::::About the IP that left a suggestion on my talk page, I tried replying to him and get him to help out with the Draft:Aramean people he was giving feedback about, but he has not responded.

::::::As of the other instances, I am not sure. I know that this topic has been very sensitive and suppressive of all Arameans, they might have been popping up when seeing new discussions, other than that, I really do not have an answer. They seem to only have been commenting on the Aramean article.

::::::It is words against words, I am not sure if you believe me, you are free to file a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on me, it was done before and I was unrelated to the accounts. Wlaak (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have been watching this unfold and it is extremely disappointing. @Wlaak and @Miaphysis have started yet another long winded debate,and it has not being going anywhere. @asilvering, Wlaak has not done s they said and moved on. I asked for a simple explanation of the changes they wanted to make and have given me roughly 3,500 words. Both Wlaak and Miaphysis have been bludgeoning and in my opinon edit warring, to get their points aross. I will file an RfC for the naming dispute (@Robert McClenon would you willing to help?). To be clear, I have no stake in this other wanting to get the article to GA. I don't want anyone to be in trouble but here we are. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I too am disappointed, and have again proposed a topic ban. You're welcome to comment below. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am sorry to have disappointed you, but in this case, I was engaging in the talk page rather than edit-warring, the only edits I did was restoring the drastic, huge and controversial edits that lacked consensus, I also pushed a edit where I implemented the agreements me and the other party had in the talk page. I understand the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON, I should have left the discussion and initiated a RfC after realizing we were just going in circles.
• ::Would a logged warning not be more fitting? Wlaak (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Wlaak, No it would not. @Asilvering, gave you a warning before and now. You have chosen not to heed it. While this may be unfortunate, you should have seen it coming from 100 kms away after the last ANI thread. As the wording of the proposed TBAN says, you can appeal it in 6 months; take the restriction with dignity and edit other areas, show the community that you can be trusted to edit. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't even know what to say anymore. I am failing to see how a talk page discussion can lead to a TBAN. I was reverting undiscussed moves yesterday, and doing so got me tbanned. Wikipedia should be inclusive, not exclusive. The undermining of other identities is worrying, really. Fourteen years and counting, one editor has managed to hinder the development of certain categories on Wikipedia. All of this feels like constant, one-sided, and deliberate attempts to have me gone. Wlaak (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Wlaak, no one wants you gone, certainly not me or the other editors who have tried to help you. In 6 months time you can certainly start to help support other identities, but right now you have been going about it the wrong way. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Further to what @CF-501 Falcon just said, @Wlaak, it's not within my power as an individual administrator to give you a tban from this topic, but it is within my power to block you outright for disruptive editing. I'm confident that, if I had done so, no other administrator would have overturned it, at least not for some time. So please understand that when I say I don't want you gone, that isn't a hollow statement. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::certainly doesn't feel that way. there was even a brand new account accusing me of harassing them via mail. With only Assyrian WikiPedians participating in the Syriac Orthodox Church article, it hurts me to say, but I think it is inevitable that it will fall to their bias. i did my best to hinder any POV, and got banned for it.
• ::::::please maintain it and keep it neutral. i have linked all (secondary) sources on the talk page, and the current version includes the references regarding the Church’s identity, so that when there are proposals or changes made to the page, you will have the ones i left. Wlaak (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::You aren't banned yet. But if you are, you will be able to appeal the ban and return to normal editing eventually, and I hope that you do. Again, you'll find it much, much easier to convince other editors that there are problems with neutral pov on these articles once you have more experience with editing. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Wlaak, there's no such thing as a logged warning, since this isn't a CTOP. Sorry. I'd have handed one out ages ago if I could have. Instead I warned you several times that you should edit in some other topics until you had more wikipedia experience. -- asilvering (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I noticed what was going on while skimming through the SOC page and checking out the talk page earlier today. I agree with @Asilvering that Wlaak's messages could be shorter, it really felt tiring to read a lot of this in one sitting because it seemed to lead nowhere. I don't want to dogpile on Wlaak because this shouldn't turn into intimidation, but I agree that a lot of these edits made by Wlaak have largely been running against the consensus, disregarding WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS - I second @Shmayo as well. An RfC should be filed. User:Ghebreigzabhier 22:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Socks gonna sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:I have edited the article under a previous account I lost the password for. This user was extremely disruptive and emailed me with harassing words. how do I report this? TheLiberalWikiEditor (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Are you serious? What article are you speaking of and what name was your account under? I just recently got a wiki-mail and I have not contacted anyone via that email apart from the Arbitration Committee. Can you share what I allegedly said? I am more than happy to prove that I have not emailed you anything, these are extreme accusations!

::Your account is brand new, literally created today and throwing these accusations. Wlaak (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Wlaak, my advice is to respond no further about this alleged harassment, and let arbcom deal with that if necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::okay, thank you Wlaak (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::@TheLiberalWikiEditor, you need to email User:Arbitration Committee with this kind of thing. Please do not post about it here. Obviously, Wlaak will be completely unable to respond to these allegations on this board; please don't put them into that position. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

Could I ask participants in and watchers of this topic area more broadly to provide what they think are the <5 most single contentious articles in this topic area? I don't mean "ones currently being disrupted" or "ones currently involving Wlaak". I am quite sure that what {{u|Wlaak}} wrote above, {{tq|these "disputes" have always been a problem when it comes to this topic}} is true, and, given that, it's strange that there hasn't been an arbcom case or discussion about community sanctions in the topic. It would be helpful to see the "most contentious" or "most disrupted" articles as context. Not most important/critical - I'm looking for the ones that make the clearest case that this topic area is problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, User:asilvering, for asking the editors to identify the specific topics of contention.

:If I understand correctly, User:Shmayo has been given bad advice that is wasting their time and the time of the community. They appear to be saying that they were considering DRN or RFC because they have a combination content and conduct dispute, and were advised to try WP:ANI instead. When a case is filed here at ANI without previous attempts to address the content dispute, it often ends up with an exchange of unpleasant posts and no conclusion, and that is what has happened so far, four days after filing, because RFC has not been attempted. I already said that User:Wlaak is pushing a point of view. It appears that User:Shmayo is also pushing a point of view. I don't think that it is time to topic-ban both editors. I think that it is time to try RFC. Maybe Shmayo doesn't know that the issues are to put in an RFC. If so, maybe they should try DRN. If there is a deadlock over a content dispute, DRN will often ask questions designed to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. I think that Shmayo was almost right in trying either DRN or RFC until they were advised to try ANI instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that if this matter were to go to ArbCom, ArbCom would, among other things, define a contentious topic area, maybe The Levant, broadly construed. So maybe the community should impose a community contentious topic area to avoid an ArbCom case. So I agree that the editors should follow the advice of User:asilvering in trying to define what the area of dispute is. Either that, or RFC, or DRN to formulate the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::"The Levant" is what I'd use if I had to tban or conditional unblock someone, to be sure I'd gotten the whole range of issues, but I think the community could probably come up with something more restricted, like Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac topics, which is an absurd mouthful but probably covers everything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am not sure if this is about me receiving a topic ban or not and if I am writing my own sentence, I hope not. But the topic would be most fitting in the Near East, as this includes basically everything regarding this topic. The Levant is very limited, most places of origin amongst all groups is far from the Levant. I am not too educated about this matter (disputes, TBANS etc.) and if "Near East" is a valid one, but that is what I would identify it as. Wlaak (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I did not say that I would support a topic-ban. I implied that I would support a contentious topic status. I already opposed a topic-ban once before. A topic-ban is necessary if efforts to resole the content dispute fail. There have not been adequate efforts to resolve the content dispute. I will support a contentious topic declaration as a way of demanding that the parties try to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:asilvering, the article "Arameans" was semi-protected during 2023 due to persistent disruptive editing. It usually attracted a high number of IPs. Other than that, I don't think there is any article that stands out in particular. Articles about places and persons (and organizations/institutions, like in this case) are all subject to the dispute. Shmayo (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hey there, having viewed the ANI from the sidelines I wanted to give an answer. I think "The Levant" as a topic of contention is too broad and would have to factor into account other unrelated topics involving certain groups, countries, people, etc. The topic I would define as contentious would fall under the banner "Assyrian naming dispute", since it is prominently disputes surrounding Assyrian, Chaldean, and Aramean identities.

:As Shmayo said above, articles about anything that ties back to Assyrians are all subject to dispute. But I think there are a few articles that stand out, which I've listed below:

:* Arameans

:* Shamoun Hanne Haydo

:* Defense of Azakh/Defence of Iwardo

:* Turoyo language

:* Basically any Assyrian village in Mardin/Tur Abdin

:* Tel Keppe

:Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, everyone. Up at WP:VPR#Community sanctions for "Assyrian" topics now. -- asilvering (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be a content dispute involving Syriac Orthodox Church and Assyrian people and Arameans. I am saying that there appears to be a content dispute, because it seems to be impossible to get the parties to state exactly what the content dispute is, because they want to resolve the conduct dispute first. Rather than trying to resolve the messy combination of content dispute and conduct dispute, can the community assert community general sanctions over the topics of Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian people, and Arameans, and then let uninvolved administrators impose sanctions?

Multiple parties seem to want to deal with conduct first rather than resolving the content dispute, so that normal content dispute resolution will not work until sanctions are imposed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:A long exchange that seemed to have degenerated into name-calling was just closed off at Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Church#Name_&_Identity and, in my opinion, illustrates that battleground editing is interfering with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would love to have the content dispute resolved and have been attempting to do that. From what I understand the actual dispute boils down to is the Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian or Aramean? I think that this requires sanctions, as people are getting very heated over it. I don't think the entire article is contentious, rather that "Assyrian people and Arameans" may need to be a CTOP (community or arbcom). Thank you for the help, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::My impression is that indeed it's not just the church where these things are being disputed, but pretty much everything related to these ethnic groups in the region. I think "Syriac" as a name has also appeared in these circumstances, and maybe a few others; regardless, I think the names of ethnic groups in the region should probably be labeled as a contentious topic in some form.

::I also believe that users have made comments suggesting offsite coordination; if any of them have evidence to that effect, then I think it may have to fall under the remit of ArbCom, so that such evidence can be analyzed. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::_{+1. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}

:@Robert McClenon, that's exactly what my post in the section above is all about - putting together the evidence to be able to make a request for GS at AN. -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I haven't read through the dispute presented in the ANI report here, but adding an anecdotal +1 that GS/CTOPs for Syriac, Aramean and Assyrian identity and national politics is warranted based on the amount of disruption and acrimony we see in the topic area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rosguill, before I make that suggestion to AN, do you see any difference between the topic as you've described and "Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects", as I worded it in the tban proposal below? -- asilvering (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No {{u|asilvering}} I think your framing is appropriate and likely safer in its inclusion of Chaldean, although (again anecdotally) I feel like most of the disruption we see is specifically over Aramean vs Assyrian _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Asilvering If it's of any assistance, I'm currently working on Draft:Assyrian identity crisis, which aims to discuss why this dispute is so contentious. As of now I plan on converting it to my sandbox so that I can publish it directly once it's finished; it's not yet complete and once it is, I want to get it peer reviewed and to ping the active editors in this topic area to hear their thoughts and concerns. For now, though, I think that it would help to consider that perspective in order to determine the extent to which this should have sanctions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @Surayeproject3, this is certainly helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I proposed this in an earlier thread here at ANI, and it wasn't taken up. Since the disruption has continued, I'm opening it up for discussion again. I don't want to give Wlaak an indefinite block. I do, however, think that they need to avoid this obviously contentious topic until they are more experienced with collaboration on Wikipedia. I've made that suggestion to Wlaak several times to no effect. Accordingly, I am again proposing an indefinite topic ban from Assyrian/Chaldean/Aramean/Syriac subjects, broadly construed. This can be appealed to WP:AN in six months. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose, I was trying to reach consensus on the Syriac Orthodox Church, drastic and controversial edits were taking place before a consensus. Wlaak (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - While I've stated that Wlaak has shown positive signs since previous disputes in March and April, the arguments being made on the article for the Syriac Orthodox Church and the other things mentioned above (namely the WikiProject Assyria template and Shamoun Hanne Haydo) clearly indicate a continued Aramean-POV. At the point where it is still being disruptive and negatively influencing the development of the encyclopedia, it's definitely grounds to reconsider the topic ban. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. At the moment, I believe Wlaak is simply not competent enough to edit in this contentious topic area. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - I have tried to work with and meditate with Wlaak. However, @Miaphysis should be given a formal warning for edit warring. This was not the best outcome possible but it is necessary. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Comment - After reading what @Robert McClenon wrote, I would only support if this was for both sides. While @Wlaak may certainly benifit from a TBAN , so would @Surayeproject3 . While a closer would certainly look at who supported and opposed, quite a few of the supports are involved editors from the other side of the argument. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@CF-501 Falcon, look at how you originally say it's another editor who should have a warning for edit-warring, then following RMcC point out a different one as needing sanction. The common denominator here is Wlaak. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Asilvering, I do not disagree with your proposal. I just believe that all the involved editors should be given a warning. I was in the process of asking RMcC if he would be willing to propose a TBAN for both of the above editors and after warn Miaphysis and Shmayo. To make it clear I do support the TBAN of Wlaak. Sorry for the confusion, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@CF-501 Falcon Why exactly are you proposing that I receive a topic ban? I have just seen your post on @Robert McClenon's talk page and am confused as to why you are suggesting that. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Surayeproject3, I was under the impression that you were doing the same thing as them albeit maybe to a more acceptable degree. Your userpage comes of as POV pushing; which I realize may not be your intent. This was just a suggestion, you have shown that you can edit the Syriac Orthodox Church article productively. Maybe a TBAN is a little bit too strong; a warning would suffice. Considering @Asilvering's comment above, I agree. I would be agreeable to a warning to you and the other three to not edit war (not necessarily you) and POV push. It would be better to wait and see if more problems arise without the common denominator; in which case stronger actions could be taken. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::User:Surayeproject3 - Restoring the previous ANI thread on this topic when the community was ready to let it hibernate is only one example of your disruptive editing. I haven't finished reviewing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - I have made my case as to why Wlaak is trying to give a WP:UNDUE impression of the Aramean identity in the Syriac Church giving a certain impression while omitting the details and marginalizing others. Miaphysis (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment - I do think that, deserved or undeserved, it's understandable that the user in question feels a bit piled on, and there should definitely be some way to ensure they aren't completely shut out if there is an RFC or the like (albeit possibly with a word limit to avoid overwhelming the discussion) Sesquilinear (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment- The user @Wlaak should still be able to work, to some extent, on certain categories, such as his draft, to which I’ve also contributed. It would be a shame for him to lose access to everything he wish to do. Historynerd361 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is indeed a great shame. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Sesquilinear and @Historynerd361, are you suggesting that the restriction be only for namespace? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes. That way he can at least continue to work on his draft. Historynerd361 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::He can continue to work on his draft in a text file on his local machine. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::how does a draft hurt you? do you really want me to work on a text file? with no WikiPedia tools such as referencing? linkage to other articles? there will be no noise from me either way, the draft won't affect you. Wlaak (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The problem is that the area seems problematic for you. You can always use something like [https://zotero.org Zotero] for your references. Let the draft be for 6 months and work on something else. Either way, just let the proposal run its pace; otherwise it may just make it worse for you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::i really have nothing more to say Wlaak (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I was suggesting something more narrowly tailored to an RFC or ArbCom case, honestly. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Makes sense. I don't think I have ever seen anybody get a TBAN for one namespace only (I haven't been here for too long). CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Editors are sometimes banned from particular namespaces, but I don't think I've ever seen a topic ban about a particular subject formulated as only a mainspace ban. If the topic is problematic it's problematic, regardless of location. -- asilvering (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::_{Thank you! That makes sense. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}

::::@Sesquilinear, if there's an arbcom case, arbcom would probably grant an exemption from the tban for the purposes of participating in it. If there's a major RfC on this topic while Wlaak is tbanned, I would happily support his ability to make a single !vote on the topic as a limited exemption to the tban. Broader participation wouldn't work out (in my view), since we'd end up with the same issues that lead to this discussion in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment- please, allow me to at least work on my drafts. i will not be of disturbance to any of you anymore. thanks to the two of you guys writing comments. Wlaak (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time, as a one-sided solution to a problem with at least two "sides". Shmayo, the Original Poster of this thread, and Surayeproject3 have both been gaming WP:ANI. I am concerned that if we topic-ban one editor, we, the community, may think that we have solved the problem for now, and may leave the problem alone instead of trying to address a problem that has been simmering for at least five years. The archives of Talk:Arameans show that a history of sockpuppetry and personal attacks, and an ongoing controversy over whether there should be a separate article on the modern Aramean people. Topic-banning one editor is not an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Robert McClenon, who is this "we, the community", you're talking about? Everyone who has taken part in this thread has said the area is contentious. Which of us do you think are going to forget about it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, I mean that the community has two parts to its institutional memory: its active institutional memory, which consists of the content of its noticeboards, and its long-term institutional memory, which includes the archives of its noticeboards. Yes, I do mean that when the topic-ban is imposed, follow-up action will be a lower priority, and then this thread will be auto-archived, and then the community will remember it again the next time that an editor reports an issue here or on another noticeboard. We, the community, all take conflicts in Wikipedia seriously, but the level of attention that we give to a particular issue varies, because many of us would rather be expanding Class C articles or reviewing drafts or gnoming categories rather than engaging in drama. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban of both Wlaak and Surayeproject3, for mirror-image histories of POV pushing and stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support: There's too much risk compared to benefit for the health of this Wikipedia. It's not indefinite, it's not excessive - and many things can change in a few months for better or for worse. User:Ghebreigzabhier 02:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Comment: As some have suggested, the bulk of his disruptive editing is on this page in specific - so I too don't see the harm of letting him work on his drafts. User:Ghebreigzabhier 02:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The draft to which Wlaak refers has been submitted for AFC review, and is at Draft:Aramean people. I have marked it as under review, and expect to complete my review in about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Robert McClenon hi, i just pushed a edit on the draft since its still before i get blocked, and just realized that it has been sent for review. the draft was not finished, i have not put enough sources in it, and some parts were not done. i also did not leave a comment with the draft, it was supposed to say that if it passed, the current Arameans article to be moved to History of the Arameans Wlaak (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::User:Wlaak - Your draft has been submitted for review, and I am reviewing it. It is true that some parts of it are not done. It can be reviewed in its current state. You say that you did not put enough sources in it, but that statement is silly. It has 230 sources in it, which is more than are often seen in Good Article Nominations. Your draft has been submitted for review, and is being reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Okay thank you, fingers crossed Wlaak (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::On the one hand, I expect that the review will take about another 24 hours. On the other hand, I expect that I will accept the draft, with the knowledge that it will be controversial, and that it may be nominated for deletion, but a deletion discussion should be the consensus process that is needed to resolve the content issue that is being exacerbated by conduct. I will not be trying to guess whether there is a greater than 50% of surviving a deletion discussion, but I am making the judgment that either a deletion discussion or the absence of a deletion discussion will have a positive effect on the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I have accepted the draft, which is consistent with previous discussion, and with my objective of facilitating resolution of the content dispute via a consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC) draft acc
• ::::::thank you, unfortunately, it has already been filed for AfD by the other party of this discussion Wlaak (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• I have initiated a deletion discussion. Shmayo (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Denying sock}}

:*Support* , but I think the ban should be indefinite.

:WikiPatrollingOfficer (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::do you guys see what i mean? brand new account, banned for sockpuppet and tried getting me blocked for good... Wlaak (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, @Wlaak, I see it. That kind of thing is exactly why I've suggested so many times that you leave this topic area for now and edit something else while you build up experience and a reputation for making good edits. As an established editor, you will have very little to fear from this kind of behaviour. As a new editor only working within a contentious subject area, you are extremely vulnerable to various kinds of abuse and tag-teaming bullshit. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:Support. Disruptive editing, including edit warring since this was filed. I also agree with KhndzorUtogh. Shmayo (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Edit warring goes both ways. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment - TBAN should be two way. Surayeproject3’s edits are just as disruptive. Upon reviewing Surayeproject3s edits, I've came across these disruptive edits, such a 4 year disambiguation with no edits done until Surayeproject3 erased the Arameans for Assyrians, despite the disambiguation being about "Aramaic people" See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aramaic_people&diff=prev&oldid=1260687959 this]

:Surayeproject also removed the Syriac name from this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Union_Party_(Lebanon)&diff=prev&oldid=1260693637 party], switching it to Assyrian, saying it is a Assyrian party even when the party's name is Syriac.

::See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Place_name_changes_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=1287694899 this] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hidden_Pearl&diff=1262270623&oldid=668202564 this][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_of_Edessa&diff=prev&oldid=1286712086 this]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midyat_Guest_House&diff=prev&oldid=1283854677 this]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_of_God_Cathedral_(Southfield,_Michigan)&diff=prev&oldid=1271437033 this][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hidden_Pearl&diff=prev&oldid=1262270623 this]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syriac_Union_Party_(Lebanon)&diff=prev&oldid=1260693637 this]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aramaic_people&diff=prev&oldid=1260687959 this]

Also see talk page discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Place_name_changes_in_Turkey#Changes_to_what_language here] --Historynerd361 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Stevencocoboy}}

I am once again bringing User:Stevencocoboy here for continued WP:CIR and WP:IDHT violations.

I previously reported this user here on January 27th. I'm not going to relitigate that report again; interested editors can read the archive for the history of this situation.

Stevencocoboy's inadequate grasp of the English language continues to be problematic. He has repeatedly reverted edits to the {{Medals table}} templates on numerous figure skating articles on the grounds that they are against the rules of the template or something like that. Honestly, I don't understand what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_de_France_(figure_skating)&diff=prev&oldid=1287936271 this edit summary] was even supposed to mean: "I know but accept wiki rules IS NOT any problem and it will more better. It's not a revert reason". Stevencocoboy was allowed to continue editing after his previous visit to ANI on the promise that he would cease his disruptive editing. I am not sure how re-ordering the coding of templates so as to make them more difficult to navigate and maintain is supposed to be beneficial to anyone. I have tried to explain that the template does not require the data to be entered in any particular order and will still display properly, yet here we are. I don't know if it's WP:CIR and WP:IDHT or both. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have already answer many times, I'm following Template:Medals_table#Example edit the medal information. It's definitely not disruptive editing and many medal tables are following the example. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Bgsu98}}, can you list some examples (with diffs) where this user has been disruptive since the last discussion closed? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::He [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stevencocoboy has re-ordered or reverted the data in numerous templates] despite being advised that the order of the information's entry does not affect how the template displays. The idea was to make the templates easy for future editors to maintain without having to continuously hunt for a particular country, or reshuffle the data based on the accumulation of medals. I honestly think he believes the template will only display the data in the order it is entered. The explanation "it will more better" fails to explain how ordering the data in a difficult-to-navigate format will make anything better. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you maybe explain this to him in simple English? What I see here → User talk:Stevencocoboy#Figure skating templates is very wordy and includes the word "hell". ("The template does not require the data to be entered in any particular order." ← Nice, but maybe too fancy for him to comprehend.)
The issue is so minor... Blocking him for this would be too much. I can't believe he won't stop if asked politely and explained what he is doing wrong. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I left a message to him: User talk:Stevencocoboy#Template:Medals table. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, {{u|Stevencocoboy}} is right. He is just following the example shown in the template's documentation (Template:Medals table#Example):

{{Medals table

| caption        =
| host           =
| show_limit     =
| remaining_text =
| flag_template  =
| event          =
| source         = [http://wuni15.sportresult.com/HIDE/en/MedalTally?sport=00&medalKind=DefaultSports Medal Tally]
| gold_FRA = 7 | silver_FRA = 4 | bronze_FRA = 4
| gold_GBR = 5 | silver_GBR = 5 | bronze_GBR = 5
| gold_USA = 5 | silver_USA = 3 | bronze_USA = 2
| gold_AUS = 3 | silver_AUS = 5 | bronze_AUS = 7
| gold_RSA = 3 | silver_RSA = 4 | bronze_RSA = 3
| gold_GER = 1 | silver_GER = 3 | bronze_GER = 3
}}

--Moscow Connection (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

(Pinging participants from the previous AN/I discussion {{ping|1=Liz|2=guninvalid|3=rsjaffe|4=HandThatFeeds|5=Bgsu98}}.)

Stevencocoboy is a prolific editor, makes many positive contributions, and almost never uses edit summaries, which makes it very hard to evaluate his overall record. To answer Phil Bridger's comment above, yes I have seen disruption since the last AN/I discussion closed. Here is a chronology:

• Sept 21 2024: In the first sentence of Christina Carreira, Stevencocoboy erroneously changes Carreira's nationality from Canadian-born to American.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=1246790916&oldid=1246399702]
• December 16: Knowing nothing about the history of the article, I notice the first sentence of Christina Carreira is incorect and fix it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1263368555]
• January 26 2025: Stevencocoboy changes Carreira's nationality from Canadian (correct) to Canadian-American (incorrect).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1271859666]
• January 29: Stevencocoboy says on AN/I, {{tq| I'll focus update a result only from now, the others I'll not continued edit because grammar mistakes is my main problem. I feel sorry for guys. I have a promise in here and if I break my promise, you can block me whatever you want.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1178#User:Stevencocoboy]
• February 21: I notice Christina Carreira's nationality is wrong again and change it to Canadian.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1276865292]
• February 21: Stevencocoboy again changes Carreira's nationality to Canadian-American, with edit summary {{tq|See Piper Gilles. I think Canadian-American more better than Canadian xxx who complete for the United States}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Carreira&diff=prev&oldid=1276866156] At this point he has broken his AN/I promise, reverted others three times to add a serious error to the first sentence of a BLP, and given a bizarre irrational rationale for it. (I think his argument is that since we correctly describe a different skater, Piper Gilles, as having dual citizenship, we should add a second nationality to this skater too regardless of what citizenship she actually has.)
• February 25: In the first sentence of Deanna Stellato-Dudek, Stevencocoboy erroneously changes Stellato-Dudek's nationality from American-Canadian to American[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deanna_Stellato-Dudek&diff=prev&oldid=1277518986] without an edit summary. This too broke his AN/I promise.
• February 26: I give him a vandalism warning for his edit to Deanna Stellato-Dudek. He replies, saying {{tq|Hi there, I've receive your message and you said that I'm vandalize Deanna Stellato-Dudek pages. You're so funny and I think you have a mistake. I'm not vandalize because I'm not seen the references with that she has Canadian citizenship. But it doesn't matter, she born in U.S and her hometown also in U.S. She also has U.S citizenship. But don't worry, I'll not change anything and I agree American-Canadian is best edit. But I strongly disagree with you said that I'm a vandalize in wikipedia. Thanks.}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clayoquot&diff=prev&oldid=1277703756]

I don't know if he has done anything this egregious since then or if he has further broken his AN/I promise. I don't know exactly what should be done here but I think something should be done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Despite Steven's promise to not edit prose any longer, he did just that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_and_Maia_Shibutani&diff=prev&oldid=1288370821 today]. He also does not seem to understand the basic principles of WP:BRD, as he skips the Discuss portion and goes directly to Re-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prix_of_Finland&curid=74200237&diff=1288358161&oldid=1288280615 over and over]. This edit summary – Again and again, It's definitely NOT disruptive editing and we can following Template:Medals_table#Example to edit, no rules specified we must alphabetical listing. If you think it's difficulty, you can abjuration and let the other user to edit. Thanks. – is incomprehensible. Again, if he cannot adequately communicate in English, he should not be editing on the English-language Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex_and_Maia_Shibutani&diff=prev&oldid=1288370821 this], I only add the medalists which major event they won at junior level (add the result), so I didn't broke my promise. Changing nationality because I can't see references in first time, I think it's mischief but after I found that and I'll stop change it. It have nothing to do with grammar problem. You can viewing edit history, I've only update results, included U.S sport team, U.S sport men/women, some sport championships result. etc. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This sentence – "At the junior level, they are 2009 World Junior silver and 2009–10 JGP Final bronze medalists." – needs an article after "are", but it is not a serious issue and one I wouldn't have otherwise brought up. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also, with regards to the matter that I brought up here originally, he acknowledges on his talk page that he understands that the template will automatically sort the data regardless of how it is entered, but still chooses to overcomplicate the coding for... reasons? "I know the template sorts the lines automatically by medal count, but following Template:Medals_table#Example edit the information did not wrong and no rules specify we can't listing in the order." Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's unfortunate. I guess {{u|Stevencocoboy}} doesn't understand that he may soon be blocked on the English Wikipedia and that's it, finita. Given his "intermediate"/"lower-intermediate" English language skills, it will be very hard for him to get unblocked. Could you maybe try to convince him to stop? As {{u|Clayoquot}} has noted, Steven is a prolific editor and makes a lot of useful edits. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This has been a long-time problem and I didn't bring him here the first time without exhausting all efforts and my patience first. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As have several other editors (yourself included). Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have an idea. You can just propose to change the :Template:Medals table's documentation and show it to him. (After all, currently it does say to order the countries by medal count.)
The talk page seems to be active: Template talk:Medals table. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have started a discussion about whether we should consider changing the examples in the template's documentation. Here: Template talk:Medals table#How about a change to the examples?. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Moscow Connection blocking an editor indefinitely is a last resort. We generally try discussion, warnings, short blocks, and restrictions on reverts first. On the one hand we have to consider the impact on other editors (I hear Bgsu98's comment about their patience being exhausted) and the risk to content (particularly biographies of living persons). On the other hand we want to to give individuals chances show they can succeed and we want to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked into history a bit more and I'm unhappy to see that Moscow Connection is commenting here. An administrator proposed that MC be given a one-way interaction ban from Bgsu98 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#h-User:Bgsu98_mass-redirecting_articles_about_major_figure_skating_competitions-20250419212700 one week ago]. MC, I strongly recommend that you stop commenting on anything to do with Bgsu98. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy, regarding your changing of skaters' nationalities, I'd like to know what you would do differently in the future. If you open an article and the nationality of the subject looks wrong to you, what will you do? After seeing the issues that people have raised here regarding you repeatedly reverting, do you plan to do anything differently the next time another editor reverts you? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Clayoquot}} Don't worry, it's a single incident. I'll not often editing about nationality information. But in the future, if I have a question, I'll open a discussion in talk page and ask the other users opinions first and we need waiting for a consensus. Also I will not revert while the next time another editor reverts my edit. I'll open a discussion too. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Stevencocoboy I just showed you above that you added erroneous nationality information in four separate incidents, and you're stating it was a single incident. This is concerning. It's good to hear you plan to use Talk pages when you have concerns. If you think there is consensus on the Talk page to change a person's stated nationality, what would you do? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Ping|Bgsu98}} I won't argue with you anymore. I have a suggestion. Both alphabetical and in the order can acceptable. If the medal table already using in the order, keep using in it. On the contrary, if the table already alphabetical listing and you can keep going to edit. For example, you recently make a new table in Rostelecom Cup and already alphabetical listing, so I will accept and won't change it anymore. Do you agree the suggestion? Also {{Ping|Moscow Connection}} you can give some opinion. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:All of the Grand Prix events will maintain an alphabetical listing since I was the one who added the tables. The championship events that were already in place can remain as they are. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Bgsu98}} Okay, so it means you agree my suggestion, right? Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's what I said. The articles which already used the template (Worlds, Europeans, Four Continents, Junior Worlds, etc.) can keep them as is. The articles where I added the templates (all of the Grand Prix events, for example) will maintain the alphabetical listing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|Bgsu98}} It's great. Thank you very much. Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that I have a question avove for Stevencocoboy that has not been answered. There are at least three issues to address: 1) tendency to edit war, 2) writing prose in English, and 3) understanding source material. Regarding #1, I think I see above a commitment above to discuss instead of reverting. Regarding #2, I am unclear on whether Stevencocoboy plans to keep to his earlier commitment to refrain from writing prose. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Clayoquot}} Sorry I think it's over because I and Bgsu98 already make a consensus so I forgot answer your question. Regarding #2,3, I'm sure will keep my promise in the future. Thanks for your concern. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Stevencocoboy OK, thanks. I'm fine with letting you have another chance. Please be careful. We hope you'll continue successfully. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Scope creep}}
• {{articlelinks|West Side (San Francisco)}}

I'm reporting a pattern of aggressive and unilateral editing from User:Scope creep regarding the West Side (San Francisco) article. The article was moved to draft without discussion and over my objection, which violates WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I moved it back per policy.

Since then, the editor has:

Repeatedly removed large portions of content (historical timelines, geographic listings, school names) as “unsourced” despite most of it being either verifiable or WP:BLUE-compliant.

Made misleading accusations that the article was “machine generated”

Issued warnings threatening to take me to ANI if I restore content they personally deem unworthy

This behavior feels like WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's interfering with collaborative editing. I'm happy to discuss article content on the Talk page and improve sourcing—but this editor's intimidation is preventing fair development of the article.

I’m requesting neutral admin attention and oversight to ensure policy is being followed.

I spent months developing this article in my sandbox before publishing. It was carefully written, well-sourced, and created in good faith. It does not deserve to be gutted based on exaggerated or false allegations by a single editor acting without consensus.Goldrock95 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Content that does not have an inline citation may be removed by anyone, at any time, without discussion or notification. Looking at their edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_%28San_Francisco%29&diff=1288461700&oldid=1288432603 here] I don't see any referenced content being removed. Directly threatening to take you to ANI over unsourced content is not on, and I can't opine on whether it is in fact human or machine generated, but the {{tqq|[removal of] large portions of content}} is entirely within policy and reasonable. Once it's removed in good faith as unsourced (which it was) restoring it requires the use of inline citations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the response. I’d like to clarify a few important points.

::While I understand that any content without an inline citation may technically be removed, Wikipedia’s own guideline at WP:BLUE provides an important exception: “Uncontroversial knowledge, especially when easily verifiable by checking other Wikipedia articles or common sources, does not require inline citations.”

::The sections that were removed included:

::A historical timeline based on well-documented events (similar in structure to the one found at Presidio of San Francisco which also lacks inline citations for most historical entries)

::A listing of public schools located in the neighborhoods discussed

::A geographic breakdown of neighborhoods commonly referred to as the "West Side"—information that is supported by several citations already present in other sections and clearly aligns with how sources define the region

::These removals were not about removing contentious, unsourced claims—they involved basic civic and geographic facts that are both non-controversial and verifiable.

::I understand and support the need for verifiability. That’s why the article already includes a number of high-quality citations. But requiring an inline citation after every sentence, even those making uncontroversial and well established factual statements goes against both the spirit and letter of WP:BLUE.

::Finally, I agree that threatening to escalate to ANI over content that is clearly being discussed in good faith is inappropriate and discourages collaboration. I welcome further editorial discussion on the article's talk page and am happy to add inline citations where truly necessary, but I don’t believe wholesale removal of non controversial information was appropriate. Goldrock95 (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As a point of comparison, the article on the Westside (Los Angeles County) follows a nearly identical structure and intent to my article on West Side (San Francisco). It outlines a loosely defined region, lists neighborhoods commonly associated with it, and provides general geographic and civic context—without requiring inline citations after each neighborhood or point. The sourcing expectations being applied to my article seem to go beyond what is expected of similar articles, and the uneven enforcement of citation standards here feels both arbitrary and unfair. Goldrock95 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I see your still complaining about standard processes. Your Westside (Los Angeles County) article is much better sourced and it not an identical structure. You can't have new mainspace articles that is 50-60% unsourced and then complain about when its drafted. You took the decision to move it back to mainspace not me. scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:BLUE is an essay, while WP:V is policy, which is pretty clear - All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you choose not to fulfill that requirement, then unsourced content can be removed by any editor. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:BLUE is concerned with things that are obvious to everyone, not just those who live in or near San Francisco. I, along with most other readers, had not heard of West Side in San Francisco (or indeed most other districts of that city) before. We are the people you are writing for, not those who already know the subject inside-out. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The article was reviewed as part of a WP:NPP sprint thats on the moment. I forget to click on it. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I just read that WP:BLUE. I'd not seen it. Its highly subjective and gives bad advice to any new editor who is just scanning it. It needs to be rewritten or deleted. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I want to respond briefly to a few points that seem to be getting lost in this discussion.

:::::::The West Side (San Francisco) article was developed in good faith over a period of months, based on reliable sources, with the goal of documenting a region of the city that (while loosely defined) is widely referenced in civic, journalistic, and academic contexts. The article includes citations that support the basic definition of the west Side and references to the neighborhoods commonly included in that classification.

:::::::A major point of contention appears to be the historic timeline. The information in that section includes events like the Spanish-American War, the founding of SF State, the founding of Golden Gate Park, and the opening of institutions that have been in operation for over a century. These are not obscure claims, they are well established historic facts. There is no reasonable expectation that every date or event in such a timeline should be accompanied by an inline citation. Articles like Presidio of San Francisco (which i did not create and have nothing to do with) and many others on Wikipedia contain timelines of historical milestones with no inline citations because they are summarizing general knowledge, not introducing novel claims.

:::::::If someone wants to challenge the inclusion of a specific item, I’m open to providing sources or trimming where appropriate. But wholesale removal of non controversial information without even a talk page discussion is not reasonable, and certainly not necessary to satisfy WP:V.

:::::::Frankly, this is nitpicking at its finest... If the article were asserting a controversial political position, or inventing new definitions, I could understand the level of scrutiny. But this is a regional overview backed by NUMEROUS citations up front and internally linked references. The neighborhoods, institutions, and landmarks mentioned align with what’s cited in the body, and with how other Wikipedia articles describe the same areas.

:::::::The expectation that every item on a regional or historical list (no matter how obvious) must be followed by an inline citation seems to be selectively applied and inconsistent with how other location based articles are treated. If there's a consensus here that certain parts need more sourcing, I’ll address it, but let’s not treat general civic or historical facts as though they’re controversial theories requiring a footnote per sentence. Goldrock95 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::We are talking about this article. We can't clean up the whole of Wikipedia here. Stop trying to be consistent. If we were to be consistent all the time then we would have to edit millions of articles at the same time. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_(San_Francisco)&oldid=1288432603#Historical_Timeline unsourced timeline]. I see at least a dozen entries on that timeline that I don't know about and certainly don't consider "well established historic facts", and I would expect an inline citation to verify those facts. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia read by an international audience, that may not be aware of those well established historic facts. If there are citations in the body of the article that can be used, then use named refs, and put inline citations to the timeline. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I also wanted to add that sometimes when I am creating a new article, I have looked at other similar articles for structure/style/layout ideas, but if that said article was lacking sources or inline citations, I didn't take that as a cue that I could do the same, and not use inline citations. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm starting to get hints of a WP:CIR issue here. I thought this was simple case. Every sentence on Wikipedia in mainspace needs a reference per long established consensus. There is no argument under any circumstances that negates that consensus at time. That is our core function to reference information so its verifiable. Building an argument on some indeterminate state of the project is a falsehood. Your effectively advocating for editor control of the content your writing, essentially deciding what is what. That is WP:OR. Your deciding what is need referenced and what doesn't. There is no cogent argument there. You need to careful here. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I’ve already said I’ll add inline citations where needed. That doesn’t justify blanking entire sections including historically well established events like the creation of Golden Gate Park or the Mexican-American War without even distinguishing between what’s verifiable and what’s not. That’s not collaborative editing, it’s overreach.

:::::::::::Claiming that inconsistent application of citation standards is acceptable because “we can’t edit everything” is exactly the problem here. I’m being held to a stricter standard than multiple other regional articles that use similar structure and tone including Westside (Los Angeles County) and Presidio of San Francisco, and no one wants to acknowledge that. That’s selective enforcement.

:::::::::::And to ScopeCreep specifically: vague threats like “you need to [be] careful” and tossing around WP:CIR are is not just inappropriate, it crosses the line into intimidation. That kind of rhetoric has no place on Wikipedia and reflects the exact problem here: one editor instigating conflict, acting as gatekeeper, and then using threats to discourage further participation. I’ve followed process and cited policy every step of the way. I won’t be bullied off the project because someone doesn’t like having their actions questioned. Goldrock95 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{tq|I’ve already said I’ll add inline citations where needed.}}

::::::::::::They are needed wherever unsourced content has been challenged and removed, so please go ahead and do that. If you want to start a wider discussion about 'inconsistent applications of citation standards', then please free to initiate that discussion elsewhere, as ANI is not the place for that discussion. This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and in my view, you have failed to demonstrate that any sanctions are warranted for the behavioral issues that you have raised. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Understood. I will move forward with improving the article, including adding inline citations where appropriate. I'm not resisting that step.

:::::::::::::That said, I want to make it clear that the issue I brought to ANI was not just about the citation standards or content removal. It was about the behavior of ScopeCreep, who has continued to escalate inside this very thread, most notably with a veiled “be careful” comment and the invocation of WP:CIR to suggest incompetence. That’s not collaborative editing, and it’s not appropriate conduct especially on a noticeboard meant to address behavioral concerns.

:::::::::::::I respect that you may not view this as sanctionable behavior, but I disagree that it should be brushed aside. ScopeCreep has shown zero interest in engaging constructively, and his tone toward me has been arrogant, hostile, and personally targeted from the start. If this is considered acceptable editor behavior within dispute resolution forums, then that’s a separate issue worth discussing.

:::::::::::::Regardless, I’ll continue working to improve the article. But the conduct I’ve experienced throughout this process should not be normalized. Goldrock95 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::ScopeCreep is not always right (that is an impossible standard), but in this instance he is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Well, almost impossible -- see User:EEng#correct. EEng 02:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Scopecreep's editing here is pretty clearly in violation of WP:V as a whole. Removing non-controversial material because it doesn't have an inline citation isn't how it's supposed to work.

:::::::::::"Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added" (my emphasis). And "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it." Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Also from WP:V:

::::::::::::"Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed."

::::::::::::"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis is mine). -- Mike 🗩 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Leaving aside everything else here, I'd like to note two things. {{tqq|Wikipedia’s own guideline at WP:BLUE provides an important exception: “Uncontroversial knowledge...does not require inline citations.”}} Once material is challenged and removed for being uncited, it's no longer uncontroversial. Also, several of Goldrock95's replies in this thread carry the hallmarks of WP:LLM use. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If calling someone a robot is your rebuttal you’ve already lost the argument. Goldrock95 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Saying "you've already lost the argument" is the last resort of somebody who's lost an argument. Also I wasn't rebuttal-ing you. I was pointing out the simple fact that you have been blatantly using LLMs to communicate here, which is seriously frowned upon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

: The article is almost entirely synthesis and should probably be deleted at WP:AFD. The appeals to how much effort you have put in are not an argument to keep this article. I'm not sure the draftification was appropriate, but it has been un-done; continuing to argue about it here is simply a distraction from the multiple severe problems with this newly-created article by a new editor. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see how scope_creep violated WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Articles can be boldly moved to draftspace without prior discussion, and editors can object to that move and return it to mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this section should be closed, we don't need more meta-conversations/discussions about the article. Please discuss the article on its talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = content dispute

| result = other editors of lying when they simply disagree with you is going to become a conduct dispute if you keep it up. asilvering (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello,

@Chetsford has lied several times about sources being cited in Draft:Christopher Mellon and its talk page.

Recently, @Chetsford made AfD nomination on the [https://archive.ph/mwthk original Christopher Mellon article]. The article was deleted.

I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples. Nevertheless, I solicited BuySomeApples' help, and we put in a bunch of work to vet suitable sources to satisfy Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Throughout this process, Chetsford was commenting on our drafting and sources (and in some cases [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288276727&oldid=1288229029 actively lying] about whether sources had been used in the previously deleted version).

Based on a reference in my re-drafting efforts, I suspect Chetsford then put in an AfD nomination for The Sol Foundation. I suggested that this article should be kept in the AfD discussion, and I believe this attracted the attention of @Very Polite Person.

Very Polite Person then asked if he could help with the drafting of the Mellon article, and I agreed. They redrafted and submitted the article in a day.

Chetsford then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288537313&oldid=1288512298 commented on the draft], suggesting that it should be rejected on the basis of "SIGCOV problems." He listed out 9 sources that he deemed to have these problems.

Very Polite Person's redraft was met with a rejection from @Bonadea, with a justification of "Per Chetsford's source evaluation (supported by my own source checks) and the recent AfD outcome."

In response to this, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288635827 written a rather large comment] documenting Chetsford's mendacity in his "source evaluation." Here is the part that details his mendacity:

Regardling "Chetsford's source evaluation" of the recently submitted draft, here are the falsehoods that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288537313&oldid=1288512298 he wrote] in bold, with my refutations in plain text:

"7. [https://www.space.com/ufo-report-military-dod-to-congress-next-month Article] is about flying saucers; Mellon is briefly quoted in it speaking about flying saucers - WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV This article never once mentions "flying saucers," nor is Mellon "briefly quoted in it speaking about flying saucers." The article details Mellon's past positions in presidential administrations, and how Mellon gave declassified Navy UFO videos to the New York Times, resulting in their "blockbuster story" about the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. It also describes his "60 Minutes" interview and includes his assertion that UAPs are a national security issue. This is significant, reliable, independent coverage of a high-profile individual in the UAP disclosure movement.

9. 12 page [https://web.archive.org/web/20250503002342/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA596867.pdf article] on a piece of legislation mentions Mellon once ("Christopher Mellon, Cohen’s staffer, later said: [quote]") - WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV This is demonstrably false. Mellon is mentioned three times, but even if that weren't the case, one mention would still evidence the claim that: "In interviews with Joint Forces Quarterly, Mellon in 2002 discussed his time and memories working in the United States Senate." Regardless, here are THREE mentions that show Chetsford's outright telling of falsehoods:

On page 44: "Christopher Mellon, Cohen’s staffer, later said: “One thing about Senator Warner that I always admired . . . is that he maintained an open mind. He was willing to change his point of view based on new evidence and information. Senator Warner might go into something with a great deal of conviction on one side and argue furiously, and yet as new information would come to light, he always listened.”

On page 45: "Looking back at the committee’s work, Mellon said: “It was an example of good government. It is the memory I would like to have of the Senate. There weren’t parochial motives that I was able to discern. Members were motivated by national security considerations. People were dedicated; everybody was engaged; they were working with a great deal of vigor, energy, and commitment. Issues were decided on the merits and substance. It was the kind of experience that makes you want to go into government and be involved and participate.”

On page 46: This process strengthened the bill and achieved consensus. Mellon compared it to forging a sword: “Warner and the Navy were the hammer, and Goldwater, Nunn, and the staff were the anvil. Warner kept firing in these amendments and concerns and objections to provisions. In a way, they helped to strengthen, sharpen, and harden some of the provisions and forged the bill in a hotter fire.”

10. Mellon is briefly mentioned in two short sentences in this [https://archive.org/details/darkterritorysec0000kapl/page/n1/mode/2up?q=mellon 360 page book]. False. Mellon is mentioned in THREE sentences that do justify the claim "In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, author and journalist Fred Kaplan wrote of Mellon's involvement during his Senate career with the National Security Agency and J. Michael "Mike" McConnell, former Director of National Intelligence, and Mellon's research into the NSA's budget." Nevertheless, the important part is that Mellon cracked the NSA's books and revealed their meager budget "for programs to penetrate communications on the internet." This led to McConnell assuring "the Senate commitee that he would beef up the programs as a top priority." This content can be read on page 36 of the book:

"McConnell feared that the NSA would lose its unique luster—its ability to tap into communications affecting national security. He was also coming to realize that the agency was ill equipped to seize the coming changes. A young man named Christopher Mellon, on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff, kept coming around, asking questions. Mellon had heard the briefings on Fort Meade’s adaptations to the new digital world; but when he came to headquarters and examined the books, he discovered that, of the agency’s $4 billion budget, just $2 million was earmarked for programs to penetrate communications on the Internet. Mellon asked to see the personnel assigned to this program; he was taken to a remote corner of the main floor, where a couple dozen techies—out of a workforce numbered in the tens of thousands—were fiddling with computers. McConnell hadn’t known just how skimpy these efforts were, and he assured the Senate committee that he would beef up the programs as a top priority."

12. Mellon is mentioned in one paragraph of [https://web.archive.org/web/20210427234352/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously this article] on a congressional hearing; a large portion of that paragraph is a direct quote from him - WP:SIGCOV "addresses the topic [Mellon] directly and in detail" - fails SIGCOV Again, a falsehood. Mellon is mentioned in FIVE paragraphs, and perhaps more important than Mellon's direct quotations are the implications of his work: Were it not for Mellon, Kean would not have been able to break her New York Times story and the UAP-related provisions in the 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act would not have been added. Additionally, the article highlights that Mellon has confirmed that the"government possesses stark visual documentation" of UAPs. Nevertheless, here are the five distinct paragraphs where Mellon is mentioned:

On October 4, 2017, at the behest of Christopher K. Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Leslie Kean was called to a confidential meeting in the bar of an upscale hotel near the Pentagon. She was greeted by Hal Puthoff, the longtime paranormal investigator, and Jim Semivan, a retired C.I.A. officer, who introduced her to a sturdy, thick-necked, tattooed man with a clipped goatee named Luis Elizondo. The previous day had been his last day of work at the Pentagon. Over the next three hours, Kean was taken through documents that proved the existence of what was, as far as anyone knew, the first government inquiry into U.F.O.s since the close of Project Blue Book, in 1970. The program that Kean had spent years lobbying for had existed the whole time.

After Elizondo resigned, he and other key AATIP participants—including Mellon, Puthoff, and Semivan—almost immediately joined To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science, an operation dedicated to U.F.O.-related education, entertainment, and research, and organized by Tom DeLonge, a former front man of the pop-punk outfit Blink-182. Later that month, DeLonge invited Elizondo onstage at a launch event. Elizondo announced that they were “planning to provide never-before-released footage from real U.S. government systems—not blurry amateur photos but real data and real videos.”

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, their story—“Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program”—appeared online; it was printed on the front page the next day. Accompanying the piece were two videos, including “FLIR1.” Senator Reid was quoted as saying, “I’m not embarrassed or ashamed or sorry I got this going.” The Pentagon confirmed that the program had existed, but said that it had been closed down in 2012, in favor of other funding priorities. Elizondo claimed that the program had continued in the absence of dedicated funding. The article dwelled not on the reality of the U.F.O. phenomenon—the only actual case discussed at any length was the Nimitz encounter—but on the existence of the covert initiative. The Times article drew millions of readers. Kean noticed a change almost immediately. When people asked her at dinner parties what she did for a living, they no longer giggled at her response but fell rapt. Kean gave all the credit to Elizondo and Mellon for coming forward, but she told me, “I never would have ever imagined I could have ended up writing for the Times. It’s the pinnacle of everything I’ve ever wanted to do—just this miracle that it happened on this great road, great journey.”

The point of using the term “unidentified,” he said, was “to help remove the stigma.” He told me, “At some point, we needed to just admit that there are things in the sky we can’t identify.” Despite the fact that most adults carry around exceptionally good camera technology in their pockets, most U.F.O. photos and videos remain maddeningly indistinct, but the former Pentagon official implied that the government possesses stark visual documentation; Elizondo and Mellon have said the same thing. According to Tim McMillan, in the past two years, the Pentagon’s U.A.P. investigators have distributed two classified intelligence papers, on secure networks, that allegedly contain images and videos of bizarre spectacles, including a cube-shaped object and a large equilateral triangle emerging from the ocean. One report brooked the subject of “alien” or “non-human” technology, but also provided a litany of prosaic possibilities. The former Pentagon official cautioned, “ ‘Unidentified’ doesn’t mean little green men—it just means there’s something there.” He continued, “If it turns out that everything we’ve seen is weather balloons, or a quadcopter designed to look like something else, nobody is going to lose sleep over it.”

In June of 2020, Senator Marco Rubio added text into the 2021 Intelligence Authorization Act requesting—though not requiring—that the director of National Intelligence, along with the Secretary of Defense, produce “a detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting.” This language, which allowed them a hundred and eighty days to produce the report, drew heavily from proposals by Mellon, and it was clear that this concerted effort, at least in theory, was a more productive and more cost-effective iteration of the original vision for AATIP. Mellon told me, “This creates an opening and an opportunity, and now the name of the game is to make sure we don’t miss that open window.”

In addition to all these falsehoods, @Chetsford frequently implies that coverage about a topic not "significant or in detail" based on what percent of a source it constitutes or how long the source is. This is fallacious. Coverage can be significant and in detail even if it is a small portion of larger work or even if the source is subjectively short. All of Chetsford's arguments to discredit a source based upon proportionality and length should be discounted, especially given that Wikipedia does not have specific guidelines for SIGCOV on the basis of proportionality and length. Arguments based on proportionality and length are a mere attempt to misconstrue the relevant facts of the matter—Those being the ones cited in a given source, regardless of the source length or what proportion of the source is relevant. Attempts to discredit the significance of a source based upon proportionality or length are strawman arguments that draw editors into a quagmire. Chetsford makes arguments of this kind in all of the above cases and more. It is a complete misrepresentation of WP:BASIC's statement that: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." In fact, you can find Chetsford outright denying this principle [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1288214004&oldid=1288213827 here], when he responds to my assertion that "I also think these establish his notability, especially when taken together cumulatively."

So, in sum, Chetsford has told several lies that make writing and editing articles very difficult. He also misrepresents critical basic criteria that should be understood for proper sourcing.

Thanks so much,

Ben.Gowar (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:So the TL;DR I get here is that UFO - wait, sorry, UAP enthusiasts get mad when their pet phenomena are held up to actual scrutiny and sourcing requirements. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Anger has nothing to do with it. Brute facts do. Lying is incivility per WP:ICA. Ben.Gowar (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reply from Chetsford. This appears to be a continuation of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#IP_editor_WP:NOTHERE and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#I've_been_banned_from_reverting_a_Wikipedia_page_back_to_its_original_status_before_it_started_being_brigaded.] previous discussions at ANI (and voluminous similar threads spread across ANI, article, and admin Talk pages across the project). In broad strokes, UFO believers recently became incensed that I nominated Christopher K. Mellon for deletion and have started organizing on X and Reddit after convincing themselves I'm IRL either the former director of the CIA editing WP, or a CIA-controlled AI trying to suppress the truth of flying saucers and so forth (e.g. [https://x.com/Duke87242518/status/1916405510581997921], [https://x.com/YouThrall/status/1916943675646742580], [https://x.com/GoodTroubleShow/status/1917016886417699099], [https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOB/comments/1k6k04t/harald_malmgrems_wikipedia_page_is_being/], etc.). I was even recently the topic of the first two hours of Coast to Coast AM [https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2025-04-27-show/]. UFO leaders appear to have convinced their community that, despite me running the CIA or something, I can still be doxed, desysoped, banned from editing WP by an act of Congress, and sued to death for RICO Act violations. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIboIo8z6bg]. (There seems to be some overlap between Ufology and pseudolaw in this respect.)
  In any case, the last two weeks of accusations are of similar word count to this one so it's no longer really feasible for me to reply to each of them point by point. However, I think I've addressed the crux of this in the (I think) identical complaint this editor filed at the Tea House [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1288662371] and I'm happy, as always, to address specific questions otherwise. Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Frankly, who you are is irrelevant to whether your statements are factual or not. In the case of the statements I have cited above, they are not. This is incivility. Why you refuse to address your incivility is not my concern. Ben.Gowar (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::*I previously apologized to you here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1288662371] for any offense I caused by referring to aerial vehicles purportedly piloted by space aliens or interdimensional etheric entities as "flying saucers" rather than "UAP"s. I truly will endeavor not to do that in the future if I am aware you are a participant in a discussion. Please also consider this a blanket apology for anything else I have said that may have inadvertently offended you. I follow this space somewhat, but only lightly, and it can be difficult to keep up with your community's preferred terminology from moment to moment. But I will try to do better. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:Per WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, please strike through each of your lies and apologize for each. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, I'm not going to do that. Calling a "UAP" a "Flying Saucer" isn't a lie anymore than calling an "Escritoire" a "Desk" is a lie. I offered you a perfunctory apology for no other reason than to assuage any personal offense you may have experienced. And I'm happy to do that as it takes de minimis effort on my part. But I'm not going to reorganize reality itself to accommodate you. This is the best offer you're likely to get. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If that were your only lie, I might agree with you. But you've lied at least five times (as documented in the post above). The fact that you have "no other reason than to assuage any personal offense" indicates that you truly have no problem with lying and are indeed committed to the mendacity that is specified as uncivil in WP:ICA. You put effort into telling lies, now please put effort into correcting them. Facts are important for an encyclopedia. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You wrote a 2,126 word thesis. I simply don't have time to reply to ever pronunciamento I've received in the last week. But I'll look at one additional of your claims beyond the referring to UAPs as Flying Saucers is a lie and your are guilty of lying claim. You write {{xt|"[Chetsford wrote] 12 page article on a piece of legislation mentions Mellon once ... This is demonstrably false. Mellon is mentioned three times"}}. I affirm my statement. Mellon is mentioned once. There is a narrative mention and two attributed quotes. The fact that I wasn't referring to surname counts by the word "mention" should have been self-evident since the context of the discussion was SIGCOV which isn't established by drop quotes. Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the rest of the treatise doesn't get any better and bow out of this discussion. I wish you the very best in all your endeavors. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I can tell, at worst, Chetsford is guilty of counting sentences incorrectly and not using Ben.Gowar's preferred terminology. Most of this looks like simple disagreement on an issue. I'd suggest as suitable penance that Chetsford be made to re-read this entire rant a second time, at least if that does not conflict with Eighth Amendment caselaw.

:All this should be hatted, though I guess Ben.Gowar can make a second filing, with clear diffs of explicit lies and without the whole Manifesto-ization. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Tax fraud is is just incorrect counting too. Lies are lies. Chetsford chooses to quantify statements as an indicator of significance. Then he lies about the quantity to downplay the signficance. As you point out, he is guilty. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:The world has really gone topsy-turvy when a believer in little green men accuses someone who is trying to put him right of lying. This should be closed per WP:DNFTT. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::You have not presented a sound argument. Either Chetsford made false statements or he did not. I claim he did and provided evidence. Ben.Gowar (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Ben.Gowar}} wrote at the beginning of this saga {{tpq|I redrafted the article, and it was rejected by @BuySomeApples.}} But the draft was declined, not rejected. Should I start a new thread about that called "Ben.Gowar Lying"? I could but I won't. This whole thread should be used as the the basis for a low budget UAP science fiction screenplay called "The Attack of the TLDR POV Pushers!" Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{reply|Asilvering}} personally, I think repeatedly calling other editors liars already constitutes conduct abuse warranting a block. They've done it several times already. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::They were blocked 48 hours by Cullen328 for general ABF and personal attacks. Their response was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289158230 wikilawyer]...after responding to the block with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289011140 this]. Given the repeated flippancy and personal attacks against the blocking admin, I've upgraded to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks {{u|The Bushranger}} (for your block extension, which was absolutely necessary, and acknowledging my post), I've only just seen this so apologies for not replying until now. I'll close of this bit of discussion too for archiving. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Desoldered

| result = Indeffed for treating editing Wikipedia as a battle against evil forces. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

SolderUnion was created only 15 days ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/SolderUnion&target=SolderUnion&offset=20250503190153 1]) and has ever since been engaging in disruptive behaviour on a large number of articles, with wp:personal attacks and aspersions, wp:editwarring, and POV-pushing. Although disruptive newly-created accounts are pretty common, I just found out that in the past few days their behaviour has only deteriorated, with the user making accusations, personalized to other experienced editors or vaguely to the wikipedia community as a whole, about serving alleged agendas or generally working in bad-faith:

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5: {{tq|There are additions [...] added by a group of nationalist. There are on purpose because there are many and every time have pro Greek national agenda.}} when they -ironically- reported an old editor for vandalism. diff6: {{tq|...If you don't revert especially this edit I will use it as evidence against you.}}, (update) diff7: {{tq|This is totally propaganda and will be used as evidence for a collusion of people that promote Greek nationalistic agenda.}}

Aside from their talkpage, they have been warned several times for the editwarring (e.g. diff8) as well as the attacks and accusations. (e.g. diff9, diff10). They have exhibited this behaviour in a number of -completely unrelated- articles/talkpages, such as Rum millet, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Epirus etc., where the only thing in common is that they are all one way or another Greek-history-related, and always accompanied by accusations. In fact, it appears that disruption in Greek-related content is almost always the intention (even in a random edit here), which makes me wonder whether the user is wp:nothere for anything else. This is further confirmed by the fact that, for example, when discussing in the article of Arvanites, they brought up a completely unrelated edit by User:Remsense in Alexander the Great from nearly a year ago (!) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArvanites&diff=1288804455&oldid=1288801385 diff11]), I guess trying to justify their accusations (in that edit Remsense, along with other editors, had in fact merely reverted another newly-created edit-warring account) The user generally appears to be familiar with older edits, for example, they seemed to know that User:PericlesofAthens had made a certain edit 8 years ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=1288713958 diff12]), which along with the large recent activity in a span of days, is somewhat suspicious. Piccco (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Anybody know of any previously blocked Macedonian nationalist accounts with an interest in history as a vector of propaganda? If so I'd suggest a checkuser might be appropriate here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Simonm223 Yes, I do have something in mind. Although the user has also been involved in other articles (nearly all of them Greek-history-related), I also believe they are actually Macedonia-focused. Piccco (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The edits seem uniformly someone who is POV pushing that Macedonians are not Greek. It's pretty obviously a nationalist account. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Piccco Hello! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm unfortunately far too busy with actual work and an FA review of Augustus to deal with all of this unserious monkey business by silly sock puppet accounts, so I appreciate your due diligence here in documenting it. The "editor" in question just left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PericlesofAthens&diff=prev&oldid=1288823606 this rosy little message] on my talk page, which I'm sharing here if you'd like to add it to the pile of offenses they're busy piling up. Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would kindly ask any admin to check my contributions carefully. All my contributions are supported by sources. I'm new here and don't know how actually wikipedia works. If I've been disruptive I would like to apologize and I promise I will not engage in any wp:personal attacks and wp:editwarring SolderUnion (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would recommend becoming familiar with (at very least the basics of) how Wikipedia works before making substantial edits. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. Sorry. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I made it perfectly clear this editor needed to drop their paranoid delusions of a Greek nationalist conspiracy if they wanted me to keep spending time engaging with them and their questions. They clearly have no other reason for being here than said delusions, though. Remsense ‥ 论 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Clearly a WP:NOTHERE case. Looks like a sock of banned {{user|HelenHIL}}. Khirurg (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Khirurg Not a huge surprise. I see they've also been making a rather unnecessary concerted effort to 'kick up dust' (so to speak) about cited sources over at Talk:Ancient Macedonians as well. This is a multipronged effort at POV-pushing across multiple articles, all with the same theme. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up: It appears that after a day and despite the user's promise to avoid the aspersions, their rhetoric largely remains the same, notably: {{tq|I have very strong suspicion (would say rather I'm certain) about a particular group of people that are active in wikipedia for many years and silently promote their agenda. Little by little they have made big changes...}} (diff1). Meanwhile, as another editor noted (diff2), the part of the article that the user refers to as alleged product of wikipedia propaganda had been in fact written by a Turkish editor (!). In the same reply, the user mostly talks about the article of the Ancient Macedonians, itself clear wp:canvassing ({{tq|Please check Talk:Ancient Macedonians...}}), something completelty unrelated to the article of Rum Millet, further confirming the initial "nothere" suspision, as their main motive is seemingly to disrupt any Greek-history-related article. I haven't looked more into their replies, because my time is limited, but I'm reporting some cases that stand out. Piccco (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see anything on Talk:Ancient Macedonians to be canvassed to? There's a discussion, but no RfC or other "!vote" thing there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:there's also this edit on the Ancient Macedonians talk page trying to start an entirely tenedentious debate without any specific reference to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Macedonians&oldid=1289171987 Golikom (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Update: This user is going around canvassing users that he thinks will help him, in a very WP:BATTLE manner [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishjan&diff=prev&oldid=1289286904] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorthern_Epirus&diff=1289285408&oldid=1289273094]. Admin intervention is needed at this point. Khirurg (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would like t bring to admin attention that 2 more editors (3 including me) have come to the same conclusion that nationalistic agenda of a specific country is promoted in many pages. The fact that some people are here and truly contribute to wikipedia's project doesn't exclude them from being able to commit this kind of things. Here are the two other editors concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Epirus#Name section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rum_millet#Recent edits . Statistically speaking this cannot be coincidence. I would be very happy if admin takes a closer look at what is happening. SolderUnion (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::So, yet more aspersions. If there's a good reason why a WP:NOTHERE block isn't called for, I can't think of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not only that, but blatantly lying by conflation regarding what the other editors actually said (there's of course been no paranoid delusions of a conspiracy from them). SolderUnion's happy to have unneeded scrutiny potentially drawn to other editors for potentially enabling their disruptive behavior, when in fact words are just being put in their mouths. Remsense ‥ 论 21:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would be extremely happy if you provide me a way to give you information about this group outside of Wikipedia's page the reason being not wanting data to be lost and not expose identities. SolderUnion (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why would you need to provide their doxx to me (don't!) if I and many others are colluding with them? Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at this case one more night, not only has the aforementioned rhetoric not been toned down the slightest (in my opinion, it might have gotten worse, like here: "{{tq|I have a strong suspicion of a group of people that are editors for years and they truly contribute in Wikipedia but at the same time promote nationalistic narrative in a very sneaky way.}}"), but they misinterpret other users' words, per Remsense, and now even imply that they could potentially wp:out other editors (?). Keep in mind that the parts of the articles they refer to were in fact written by various people, like the Rum Millet, as User:Jingiby noted, was written by a Turkish editor, or big parts of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) were written, if I'm not mistaken, by PericlesofAthens. Regardless. I also thought of proceeding with an SPI, although, in my opinion, with that alone the line has long been crossed at this point. Piccco (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Having looked into this, the suggestion that this is a sock of {{noping|HelenHIL}} seems to have considerable merit: note HelenHIL edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Macedonians&diff=prev&oldid=1096027783] vs. SolderUnion talk page suggestion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Macedonians&diff=prev&oldid=1289260367]. Looking more into HelenHIL's background edits, the feeling grows stronger: same topic area, and the same sort of Greek-bias allegations. I've seen enough to block as a probable sock, on top of the WP:ASPERSIONS alone. (Note that {{tqq|a way to give you information about this group outside of Wikipedia's page}} may or may not be WP:OUTING; it's certainly eyebrow-raising and the end comment {{tqq|not expose identities}} as a reason to do it off-Wiki certainly makes it sound like real-life identities are being discussed). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• And after being blocked their response was to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SolderUnion&diff=prev&oldid=1289454739 double down]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Faster than Thunder}}

I have received a warning in List of rider deaths in motorcycle racing, being accused of 'adding random content' when all I have done is broke some entries off into new sections and altered red links into an interwiki link. This warning is done out of poor faith, in my opinion. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Okay- have you notified them of this discussion as required, and what administrator action are you seeking? Have you attempted to discuss this with them? 331dot (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The vandalism warning comes off a little strong, but this is not fundamentally an issue for ANI in my opinion. Especially without any real discussion between the two users. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:@SpacedFarmer, can you really assume those edits were done in poor faith without actually talking to them? See WP:AGF. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree this isn't ANI-worthy (assuming it's an isolated incident), but why tell SF to AGF but not say anything to FTT?

::{{ping|SpacedFarmer}} I don't think that warning was in bad faith, I think FFT just didn't understand what you were doing. {{ping|Faster than Thunder}} looks like you made a mistake, and in any case a level 4 warning was too strong. An apology wouldn't hurt. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::AGF was supposed to be directed at both of them, sorry if that was unclear. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::(It is not an isolated incident)

:::I had a strange encounter with Faster than Thunder recently concerning this kind of behavior, and another came to my attention just today.

:::

:::First:

:::On April 2nd I warned a user for spam[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirajsultanov&oldid=1288408698] and reported them to AIV[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288410400] where further action was declined.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288415290] As part of that process I also reviewed the user's other edits and effectively reverted an unsourced contribution they made to Shahbuz District.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahbuz_District&diff=prev&oldid=1288411354]

:::After all this FtT left this warning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirajsultanov&diff=prev&oldid=1288427820] (uw-vandal4im) to the same user for that same unsourced addition.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahbuz_District&diff=prev&oldid=1288403584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahbuz_District&diff=prev&oldid=1288403627] As I didn't see the addition as vandalism I asked FtT about it[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1288428845], they told me the reason for the severe vandalism warning was for adding unsourced content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1288429082], I explained WP:VANDAL and asked them to strike the warning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1288430163], which they did.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirajsultanov&diff=prev&oldid=1288432412]

:::Yet after I'd asked about it on their talk page and before replying, they made a curious addition to my denied AIV report where they requested the user be banned for adding unsourced content and claimed that they were the one who reverted it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288429453] I challenged them on this and their behavior in-thread but received no reply.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1288431538]

:::

:::Second:

:::I was notified back to their talk page when a new user accidentally replied to me[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder&diff=prev&oldid=1289445721], so I decided to have a closer look. That brand-new user made this good-faith contribution[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archie_Clement&diff=prev&oldid=1289435732] to update a name based on WP:OR. For this (their first contribution) FtT gave them a {{uw-test3}} warning. The user, understandably unenlightened, replied with their reasoning[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Clements&diff=prev&oldid=1289444863], and FtT responded with a frosty {{tq|"Then you should have sourced your edits to that page."}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Clements&diff=prev&oldid=1289452149] and coi notice.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Clements&diff=prev&oldid=1289452273]

:::

:::I've not looked for more but given that these two were recently brought to me unsought, and considering SpacedFarmer's recent interaction, there appears to be some combination of a lack of good faith, moving too fast, lack of policy understanding, or proclivity towards biting with FtT's edits. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Imdeadinside12}}

User:Imdeadinside12 has been completely ignoring their own talk page, never even making an edit on it and rarely use the edit summary. In addition, this user is constantly going against Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources using unreliable sources and going against other Wikipedia rules, such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR and many others especially constant reported disruptive editing. I mean just one look at this user's talk page shows a mile long list of warnings from editors like myself which have gone completely overlooked and ignored. There also seems to be a level of incompitency regarding this users edits as stated before. I have been biting my tounge for a while, however I am tired of having to revert edits and check over any discrepencies this user has caused, they've been editing Wikipedia longer than I have and yet refused or ignore basic things all edits are require to do, thus I had no choice but to bring this here.

Examples (all are within past 6 months):

• WP:COMMUNICATE - [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Imdeadinside12] and see talk page.
• WP:NOTNEWS - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&oldid=1273938864] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&diff=prev&oldid=1272489200]
• WP:OR - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1283639102] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271673048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271829380] (latter 3 are the user's edits being reverted, to which the user kept changing them)
• WP:PW/RS - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1283639102] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&oldid=1273938864] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rey_F%C3%A9nix&diff=prev&oldid=1272489200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Savages&diff=prev&oldid=1274547086] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271284543] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271673048] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Hart_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1271829380] (latter 3 are the user's edits being reverted, to which the user kept changing them, also same as WP:PW/RS but cover the same Wikipedia rule)
• WP:DIS - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxanne_Perez&diff=prev&oldid=1276261304] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IShowSpeed&diff=prev&oldid=1285135182] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kobee_Minor&diff=prev&oldid=1287649381]
• WP:CIR - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roxanne_Perez&diff=prev&oldid=1276261304]

Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Imdeadinside12}}, I have no interest in professional wrestling so I will not comment on the subject matter, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project so you need to communicate. If you do not do so then you are likely to find yourself blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::okay i understand i edit for fun and i dont have the time to check my talk page all the time but i'll do so going forward i apologize for any inconvience but i will add that getting upset at me for not using the edit summary is little bit ridiculous cause no one that ive seen uses it or barely does so i dont understand why i am being singled out on this matter Imdeadinside12 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe this may be enlightening, along with this quote from that page.

:::"According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)" Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Secondly, when reverting an edit, an edit summary is highly recommended.

::::"It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If you don't have the time to check your talk page (what, it takes a few seconds!), you surely don't have time to make mainspace edits. Ravenswing 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Textbook WP:CIR. You refuse to communicate/read/learn. This is the reason why you repeat the very same mistakes every time; e.g. violation of WP:OR and WP:MOS, ignoring PW guidelines WP:PW/RS and WP:PW/SG, adding your personal opinion to articles, and etc. Yeah, you can have fun and contribute to WP:PW articles. But remember WP is not a personal blog. Collaboration and WP rules matter. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand. I apologize for the inconvenience I caused and I will communicate going forward. Imdeadinside12 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Imdeadinside12 Appreciate the response, however going forward remember to communicate to other editors, use edit summary, and, most importantly, respond to talk page queries. That way, Wikipedia can be an actual collabritive project as is intended. Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::i understand i will do better at communicating i'll try to use the edit summary more but there will be occasions where i just simply forget Imdeadinside12 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|Best case solution: Two adults realize they should avoid each other. Worst case solution: Two editors are permanently blocked from each others' talk pages, with site-wide blocks for anyone who continues snarking at the other elsewhere on here. {{ping|Ibrahim.ID}} you've escalated a minor disagreement to ANI twice now. {{ping|Adamant1}} you're being needlessly aggressive. And both of you: stop claiming UCC violations to make a minor disagreement somehow more critical. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Adamant1}}

I think this user violated WP:CIVIL Policy and attack me, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1288898298 created] a discussion here and notified the user in his talk page according to instructions, But in an uncivilized manner he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288989059 reverted the message] and call me "trolling" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamant1&diff=prev&oldid=1288989110 he do it twice], then he responded to the discussion in a harsh and disrespectful manner, This is not a proper way to deal with other users, this is something that clearly violates the Universal code of conduct and I think the admins should intervene according to Blocking policy --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

=== Boomerang ===

The user filed a false report having to do with me a few days ago because I removed a AI generated image from an article, which was both in line with consensus on the articles talk page and the new policy that AI generated images are banned on here. Filing a false ANU report as way to get back at someone for something is trolling. I'd say the same goes here. On their talk page Ibrahim.ID claims to be an admin on another project. If that's true, then know the difference between a legitimate ANU complaint and one being filed purely to get revenge on another user. They also reported me to ANU on Commons. Point 3.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct clearly states that harassment is unacceptable. Filing multiple ANU complaints across multiple projects just because someone removed an image from an article is clearly that. Harassment, pure and simple. So I think they should be blocked for obvious trolling and NOTHERE behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

File:Pictogram voting wait.svg Bumping thread for 4 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC){{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1747156474}}

{{Userlinks|Joseph77237}}

This editor has some 600 edits, more than 400 of them to Preterintention, their creation. Their edits to the de-wiki version of this article have all been reverted, and they are indefinitely blocked from it-wiki. Most of their talk page edits (eg at User talk:Joseph77237, which is worth a read) have been to describe other editors as being vandals (see also Special:Diff/1245797340, in which the supposed vandal is yours truly), and to complain when other editors very patiently attempted to explain various matters of policy, why they reverted, etc.

He is incapable of collaborating ({{tq|This way of working is not my style}}, Special:Diff/1244691906), and has repeatedly and over time expressed his opposition to WP:5P3 and the foundational idea of "anyone can edit". Examples: {{tq|ok. But I don't agree: the 5 pillars of Wikipedia should be interpreted through the criteria of official hermeneutics: "literal", "systematic", "teleological", "logical", "rational" etc.}} (September), {{tq|I don't find it rational that Wikipedia's specialist entries are written without having the relevant academic qualifications and expertise}} (January), {{tq|a Wikipedia article written by someone who is not a lawyer is insane}} (today). These are all from Talk:Preterintention.

He has several times declared he is done editing Wikipedia. I think we should help him make good on this promise, by means of an indefinite block. -- asilvering (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support indef CBAN. Preterintention has been brought to WP:LAW several times now. See Special:PermanentLink/1289184872#Preterintention. I was unaware of the conduct issues. Based on the evidence, Joseph seems to be a cross-project SPA focused on presenting his theory of preterintention. His editing is not compatible with a collaborative project. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:: "Cross-project SPA" is an accurate description. Joseph, a native Italian speaker, has contributed exclusively to articles about this topic (or directly related topics) in at least eight languages, listed & linked here at his Talk page, some of which are Finnish, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Somali. One has to presume AI is being used in at least some of them (asked here, but not answered). He also has stated that he will not contribute to any other topic (diff-1) and that legal topics are or should be restricted to attorney editors (diff-2, diff-3). Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Motion Seconded

:This guy has said so himself, he is incapable of following basic Wikipedia guidelines. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:seems like a WP:CIR situation as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Be interested in hearing what he has to say before we rush him to the exits. With that, yeah, Citizendium has already been tried, and it was an abject failure. Perhaps Joseph77237 would like to see if Encyclopaedia Britannica thinks his "expertise" is worth anything? Ravenswing 02:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Mathglot offered to mentor him to avoid this very situation, and this was the response: Special:Diff/1288933534. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given that he has remained extremely consistent in his views over the past year, I don't really expect to hear anything from him that he hasn't already said. -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support CBAN per WP:CNH and WP:CIR. Wikipedia isn't a place for civil POV pushing. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 03:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Asilvering}} The links you put to September and January don't go to the quotes they're referencing - may want to check that? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :sigh. Thought I already had fixed them. I will never remember that regular diffs work differently from the ones with "oldid" in them and you can't copy diff #s out of the URL bar half the time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I took asilvering's advice and wandered over to read said talk page and noticed Joseph77237 had made a comment when logged out and then repeated it logged in. That IP, 95.75.78.144, has made significant contributions in the user's topic areas of interest - way beyond the occasional 'Oops, forgot to log' - FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: Not sure which contributions you mean, but the two anons I am aware of that belong to him are {{user|88.58.91.18}} and {{user|95.75.78.144}} but I believe the IP contributions I saw were before his first edits under his registered account. There are two other IPs with similar patterns, but they are from Stockholm and Dusseldorf so may not be him. I doubt we will get to the point where we need to dive deeper on this, but ping me if we do. Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• : Support indef CBAN Narrow self-interest, uninterested in working collaboratively, denial of basic Wikipedia principles, lack of competence in editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I came across a currently banned-by-ArbCom user's talk page where multiple editors left messages urging her return. As an individual who suffered from this banned editor's behaviour, I left a note stating my reasons opposing her return and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1289168423 swiftly reverted] by {{u|Fortuna imperatrix mundi}} because my comment was not in support. Fortuna also wrote in edit summary that {{tq|...You wanna do that, it's welcome at the Dramah Boards.}} While restoring my comment, I told Fortuna that they can't only allow one-sided "support" comments and remove any that oppose their views. Fortuna [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1289174678 doubled down by reverting again] and in the edit summary stated {{tq|...yes, I make that call.}} I believe Fortuna's behaviour met the definition of user talk page ownership and also violated talk page guidelines on removing other user's comments. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how this is an example of a {{tq|chronic, intractable behavioral problem}}. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::If an editor foolishly says "take it to the dramah boards" while reverting that's basically them agreeing that there's a behavioral problem somewhere, so escalating to ANI seems reasonable in such a case. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, SnowFire, 'twas not foolishness. It was, rather, recognition of the futility of engaging in further discussion with the OP at that time and to prevent an, as I said, unseemly edit-war on a blocked-user's talk page. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{small|I was more referring to principle #1 at Wikipedia:ANI_advice#Don%27t, i.e. that it's (usually) foolish to offer to go to ANI at all. But obviously it's where some disputes belong and need to be taken lest they fester, just cutting remarks aren't great for nuance, and the general principle stands, even or especially when the editor offering to go to ANI is 'right'. Sorry if that came off wrong! SnowFire (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::::Thanks, {{u|SnowFire}}, and no worries; I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a "I double-dog-dare-you" kind of challenge :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, fair enough. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::@MiasmaEternal They did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhanaUnited&diff=1289175688&oldid=1289170848 urge me] to file at ANI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:A user talk page isn't a discussion forum; it's a venue for communicating with the editor. If I were to go over to your talk page -- however justified I thought I was in doing so -- and posted "Stay away and don't ever come back," I would be troutslapped so hard I'd be seeing flounder in my sleep. That's in essence what you did. User talk pages are not the proper venue for opposing appeals of ArbCom actions. Ravenswing 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't seem helpful to put critical comments on a former editor's talk page. And formatting that page so that it seems to solicit bolded iVotes also seems less than ideal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC) (non-objective non-admin)

:A) Negative messages aren't a good idea and skirt WP:GRAVEDANCING rules. But B) "Positive" messages are also not a good idea, at least the ones that pretend that a banned user was purely innocent. It would be wonderful if all sanctioned editors could come back with permissions restored, but this requires them acknowledging they may have done something wrong. Telling such editors that actually everything was fine and they can come back no problem is going to reduce the likelihood of a successful appeal, not increase it, by suggesting "hey it was all haters and I don't need to change at all" is a viable appeal. (But if people want to give bad advice, I guess they can... just don't be surprised at the result.) SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a circling the wagons sort of thing where a long-term editor is defended by a large group of people, no matter the terrible things they do. That entire talk page should be blanked. The past two years of the archive with similar material should be blanked, imo. Silverseren^C 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. The page curation that's happening is troubling, it seems that positive messages are kept front and center while routine notices are deleted immediately even though BHG had auto archiving set up. At one point folks were even being admonished for leaving routine AfD notices. I didn't think it was worth the drama to pursue it when it happened to me, but selectively deleting negative comments is a bridge too far.

::Frankly if BHG does return so editing, it would be a huge pain in the butt for them to dig up all of those notices from the history instead of having them in an archive. At the very least we should ask that editors refrain from tampering with the page. –dlthewave ☎ 05:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have no issue with page blanking or even a section of messages from her supporters. The comment removal was the one that broke the camel's back. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Telling Ohana to take to the drama board was a recognition that they had an issue. They had already reverted once, and as unseemly as posting criticism to someone's page who cannot defend themselves is, edit warring over it would have been worse (not that it got that far of course). So better discuss here than there. The bottom line is that, whether editors should be expressing such support on a user page or not, there's nothing codified against it (and can you imagine even trying to get consensus for a prohibition like that?). Editors support each other via talk page messages; that's what they do. But it's not WP:AN/U. If BHG ever decides to return, that will involve an appeal to ArbCom, and that will be the chance for everybody to express their bolded-or-otherwise opinions, in a forum designed for it and specifically one where all parties can comment. I also think that BHG is experienced enough that if she does ever do so it will not be because a handful of editors said it was OK. I respect that Ohana had a bad experience with her. I also think that when you have a bad experience with someone, it's best to ignore them. But I don't think it justifies... it's been called ~gravedancing, I compared it to poking the bear (from the safety of the other side of the bars!). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think User:OhanaUnited behaved with incredibly poor taste by attacking BHG in a venue where she cannot reply. I told him so on his user talk page, he replied that he's "entitled to [express] my opinion on that page just like any other user". Well, maybe, but it seems to me to be him applying "the letter not the spirit", rather like his failure to notify me of this ANI thread even though I am obviously somewhat involved. Yes, he's entitle to attack someone who cannot defend herself, but it I think to do so shews bad taste, bad judgement (he must have known it would create drama, perhaps that's why he did it), and an unpleasant attitude to his fellow humans. DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

: I'd just point out that the majority of those comments were made in 2024; BHG has been eligible to appeal her ban since August 2024. Given that she has never edited since her ban (in August 2023) I'd suggest that writing comments there now is somewhat pointless anyway, but posting "no, stay away, we don't want you" is very poor etiquette, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Making unsolicited negative comments about a banned user where they can't defend themselves is poor form. Much as I empathise with the compulsion to respond to comments urging a return by pointing out the reason for the ban, it's probably better to let things like block logs or arbitration cases or whatever other explanations are given for a ban speak for themselves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:All of this is in poor taste. Gravedancing is not cool. Neither is downplaying/ignoring the behavior that led to the ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given all of this I just have to wonder if locking the talk page in question might not be the best solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::^ This should have been done a long time ago. -- GreenC 21:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Honestly should be standard practice for anyone who has talk page access revoked, since its not like they can use it for an unblock request anyways. Silverseren^C 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• you are all children grow up. this behavior is below you. I have yet to see anyone invoke a policy based reason to commandeer BHGs TP. And fwiw im against this trend of manually killing deletion and other such templates on banned users' pages. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Trout for Ohana. GraveDancing and edit warring is not the behaviour I expect from an administrator. Even if they think they're right, being right isn't enough. Nobody (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{nac}}The talk page appears to have been locked. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm in agreement with {{u|The Bushranger}} just above. BHG currently does not have talk page access anyways, so their appeal for their ban would have to be either as an IP on an AN thread or through messaging Arbcom. Meaning there is currently no need for their talk page to be editable. If we lock the page, that prevents all of this in the first place. Silverseren^C 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Technical correction: since BHG is banned by ArbCom directly (and not through the contentious topics procedure or arbitration enforcement) any appeal would have to be to ArbCom directly (the community cannot under current policy over turn it with a consensus at AN). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've stricken that part. Thanks for the correction. Silverseren^C 22:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support as proposer. Silverseren^C 22:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support The page is pushing the boundaries of what a talk page is meant for, the result it is a source a disruption. C.f WP:FANCLUB for the social dynamics at play, specifically "angry posts" that instigate and spiral into group conflict eg. "you are all children grow up" above. -- GreenC 22:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:IMHO fully protecting the talk page is an optimal way to protect the user from these irrelevant polls (and frequent reversions of required notifications, which I loathe). FTR, BHG didn't come to this end by accident. Nostalgia is often a powerful anesthetic, but BHG and the community did not part amiably. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support a sensible solution with no obvious downsides. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - Best way to put a stop to the disruption. –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Honestly kinda surprised this isn't the norm in these types of cases anyways but that's a whole other beast to tackle and is most definitely more nuanced then I think. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:{{u|AlphaBetaGamma}} One small issue, it looks like the page was only protected for a week to address the current edit warring. Since there's no opposition I wonder if it makes sense for an admin to let your NAC stand and convert it to indefinite full protection? Pinging {{u|Callanecc}} who added the protection. –dlthewave ☎ 14:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• As someone who was/is sad about BHG going, I have two thoughts - firstly that OhanaUnited's comment was inappropriate, but also that the policing of BHG's talk page (and yes, that is what it is, even to the extent where automated messages are being reverted to keep it 'pure' or whatever) is wholly inappropriate and needs to stop ASAP. GiantSnowman 18:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This entire thread is pretty much a "{{personal attack removed}}" <- intentional template sent from the start to show my opinion (edit warring, on a arb-blocked user's talk page?), you can revert my NAC or whatever but I'm not going any further inside. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'll go ahead and up the protection to indefinite. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|TurboSuperA+}}

I have serious concerns about the conduct of User:TurboSuperA+ based on a recent dispute, which I will elaborate on below.

On 20 April, TurboSuperA+ started an RFC on Talk:Azov Brigade, and cross-posted it to WT:UKRAINE and WP:NPOV/N. I was notified through the former, which is on my watchlist as I have edited it before; I voted no and provided my reasoning, as one does in an RFC (TurboSuperA+ voted yes as the RFC starter).

Today, while the RFC was still ongoing, TurboSuperA+ suddenly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1289204657 added] Template:Canvassed behind my and another no-voter's comments (User:Sonnyvalentino), suggesting that we had come to the RFC because of canvassing. This is a baseless and false accusation: nobody ever contacted me about the RFC on- or off-wiki, and Sonnyvalentino also denied having been canvassed.

I made a subsection calling this out and asking for the evidence - as you can see, TurboSuperA+ claimed repeatedly to have secret evidence of off-wiki collusion that they've submitted to ArbCom but apparently can't present in public (whatever this is, I cannot possibly be involved in it - I have never received any off-wiki communications from other editors in all my time on Wikipedia), and also engaged in childish trolling behaviour. This seems to be a textbook case of WP:ASPERSIONS#Off-wiki evidence. When I pressed the matter, TurboSuperA+ finally removed the templates with an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1289229831 uncivil edit summary], and demanded that I "stop pinging them" (so, creating a problem by making accusations against other editors, and then demanding that those editors stop responding).

I also raised this issue on TurboSuperA+'s talk page, denying the accusation, asking to see the evidence, and pointing out that it was not constructive to put accusatory templates without evidence on editors who disagreed with them in an ongoing RFC. TurboSuperA+'s response reversed the burden of proof by questioning why Sonnyvalentino would even respond to the RFC ({{tq|"What list? Where? Why that RFC in particular, despite never showing an interest in the topic area before?"}}), as if users need a {{tq|"plausible explanation"}} or TurboSuperA+'s permission to respond to the RFC they themselves started and intentionally publicised on two different boards (also ignoring the fact that Sonnyvalentino has often edited in the Eastern Europe topic area, and revealing that TurboSuperA+ did not bother to do basic due diligence before casting aspersions, because they belatedly realised here that I frequently edit Ukraine-related articles and it's not suspicious for me to respond to a Ukraine-related RFC).

A few days before the accusations of canvassing, I also had an exchange with TurboSuperA+ starting here that I found remarkable for the amount of strawmanning, refusal to get the point, and misrepresentation of both my comments and Wikipedia policy such as WP:ONUS (e.g. {{tq|"The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break"}} [between the Azov Brigade and the Azov Movement], when I had repeatedly explained that I was not saying Wikipedia should make that claim in wikivoice, but that Wikipedia should cover the dispute between WP:RSes that make that claim and RSes that claim the opposite (per WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts").

Frankly, either TurboSuperA+ was intentionally misrepresenting my comments and being disruptive in this exchange, or they genuinely don't understand the difference between writing "some sources claim X [while others claim Y]" and writing in wikivoice "X is true", in which case WP:CIR applies for contentious topics. To be clear, the issue I'm raising here is not with TurboSuperA+'s own stance on this content dispute, but with the way they conducted themselves in this discussion by writing repetitive responses to me misrepresenting and strawmanning my stance.

While I was initially willing to move past the exchange on Talk:Azov Brigade#Discussion, I feel that the false accusations of responding to canvassing crossed a line. Even if TurboSuperA+ truly suspected canvassing - and to be totally charitable, even if they genuinely have off-wiki evidence but simply misidentified the users who had been canvassed - it strikes me as deeply inappropriate to tag the responses of editors who happen to disagree with you with accusatory templates seeking to disqualify their comments, when you cannot provide any evidence that your accusations are true or even credible (rather than, for instance, asking the users how they found the RFC). Not only is this rude and uncivil, it undermines the RFC by seeming like an attempt to distort consensus and silence other users.

Worse, I see that this is not the first time TurboSuperA+ has conducted themselves in this manner. There is an archived ANI discussion from February this year about disputed closures on contentious topics, where multiple users noted their belligerent behaviour and refusal to get the point. There is also an admin warning from January 2025 about WP:AGF and not baselessly accusing other users of conspiratorial behaviour simply because they disagree with TurboSuperA+ - in other words, precisely the pattern of conduct that the canvassing accusations fit into. At that time, User:Bishonen said {{tq|"Any more baseless nonsense about other users being underhanded or the like, and I will block you."}} I now raise this here in case that or any other sanction is necessary. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 14:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:I swear one of the consequences of ChatGPT seem to be that even the posts that don't appear to be actually chat-bot written (chatGPT rarely makes spelling mistakes) have that overly formal, overwritten ChatGPT style. To summarize this: TurboSuperA+ has claimed that they suspect certain editors (Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino if I'm not mistaken) may have been canvassed. When asked about this further TurboSuperA+ said their evidence was off-wiki and had been emailed to arbitrators. Helpful Cat wants them blocked for this. I think how this is addressed may depend on an arbitrator confirming:

:# whether evidence was received.

:# whether this evidence of off-wiki collaboration was non-spurious.

:If TurboSuperA+ did, in fact, have reason to believe off-wiki canvassing was going on then it's not casting aspersions to say they suspect certain editors have been canvassed. On the other hand, if this is just more battleground behaviour and not backed up by reasonable evidence then it's probably time for them to take a break from Russia/Ukraine articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed, if they are just muddying the water (again) they need to be stopped. If however, they have a valid concern, a boomerang may be in order. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::FYI, ArbCom has responded and there was no credible evidence. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Even if they do have off-wiki evidence, I don't believe it's appropriate for a user who is clearly involved in a dispute to tag comments opposing them with vague accusations of misconduct within the RFC itself, and then refuse to present any evidence, leaving the accusation up to conveniently discredit editors who disagree with them while the RFC is ongoing while denying them the chance to defend themselves. It might be more appropriate to ask those users about the concerns before baselessly tagging their comments, or raise the concerns separately, or wait for the ArbCom investigation.

::It is also concerning that this fits into a pattern of groundlessly accusing others of collusion that admins have warned this user about before.

::It is also not just the accusations themselves, but the pattern of incivility and WP:IDHT behaviour. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's actually not too uncommon, if you have a suspicion of canvassing, to identify those people you think may have been canvassed. I see it regularly at AfD for instance. And it does seem a bit like you're attempting to get an ideological opponent voted off the island so to speak with how you've moved the goalposts in this last line of your comment . I, for one, want to hear from the arbitrators whether there was any reasonable suspicion of canvassing before I'd commit to how we should proceed. I do, broadly, agree with @Slatersteven here that it's likely somebody should face disciplinary action for this latest exchange. I've not really made my mind up about who. I will note that your argument with TurboSuperA+ regarding a tag indicating they suspected you may have been canvassed did rather derail the RfC and it takes two to tango but I would also agree that, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Brigade#c-TurboSuperA+-20250507071400-Helpful_Cat-20250507071200 this edit] from TurboSuperA+ was poorly advised and rather childish. Saying nothing would have been wiser in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How did I move the goalposts? I already described the incivility and WP:IDHT behaviour in my original post, which has three subsections.

::::I think it is TurboSuperA+'s action of tagging me and Sonnyvalentino (without even discussing their concerns in any more civil or reasonable way) that derailed the RFC - it seems unfair to say that I derailed it by defending myself against baseless accusations, which everyone has the right to do.

::::While it may not be uncommon to identify users you suspect were canvassed, I don't think it is normal or appropriate to do this 1) with zero public evidence, thus not allowing them to respond, 2) to users you are already in a content dispute with, when you clearly benefit from silencing those users, and 3) publicly so that your accusations influence the ongoing RFC, while no one can respond to the accusations. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 15:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I thought you had responded. It might be best to stop responding and allow Admins to judge the merits of your case, rather than testing their patience. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, let's wait for admin input, and hopefully arbitrator input about the existence and quality of the secret evidence (and whether that evidence actually identifies specific canvassed users, as opposed to general evidence of canvassing). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Helpful Cat You get Arbitrator input cases or clarification requests brought before the Committee, don’t expect it here. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I see, thanks for informing me - in that case, I guess we won't find out about the secret evidence as Simonm223 suggested above. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I have opened a clarification request at the following link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request%3A_Russo-Ukrainian_War_AN_discussion] Please note that I framed the question as best I could to respect that arbitrators are not going to violate WP:OUTING while getting at the gist of my concern regarding this element of the dispute.

:::::::::::I'm not here for treating any editor as the boy who cried wolf as I see below. But I do think that we should treat any invocation of off-wiki evidence with due seriousness and gravity. So if that is being gamed then that's an issue I would take very seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for opening this. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Just as an update: The arbitration committee has confirmed that an email has been received on this topic. They have advised information beyond that is unlikely to be forthcoming in the short term. I'm disinclined to recommend disciplinary action prior to the completion of Arbitration activity on this one - so maybe warnings to both TurboSuperA+ and Helpful Cat for some battleground behaviour and then close this off as in the Arbitration court for the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Thanks for the update. I would be inclined to leave this open slightly longer (without necessarily recommending specific disciplinary action for anyone before we get more arbitrator input on the secret evidence), because we haven't heard from TurboSuperA+ themselves, and because a user below has posted documentation of this user's history doing this exact thing (accusations of canvassing when users disagree with them), which may be worth exploring.

::::::::::::::FWIW, I disagree that I was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour - a false accusation of misconduct was made against me, and I responded to it; I was engaged in civil, constructive discussion all over Talk:Azov Brigade until I was personally accused of misconduct - although I admit I could have handled it better (I haven't encountered canvassing accusations before and am not familiar with how they are usually handled or what standard of evidence is required).

::::::::::::::I also think there is room for community discussion on how to handle accusations of misconduct where the evidence can't be disclosed. While off-wiki manipulation is real and there are clearly situations where evidence must be kept secret, it also does not seem right to let editors involved in disputes influence ongoing RFCs (or other discussions) by posting accusations against other involved editors, and then refuse to substantiate the accusations so that no one can respond. Perhaps this is an area where consensus is required on standards of behaviour and civility. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::ArbCom has responded, and the secret evidence was never credible or actionable.

::::::::::::::I agree with your remark: {{tq|"But I do think that we should treat any invocation of off-wiki evidence with due seriousness and gravity. So if that is being gamed then that's an issue I would take very seriously."}} Thanks again for opening the arbitration clarification request. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{outdent|9}} Then I fucked up. My sincere apologies. Both to you, @Helpful Cat and @Sonnyvalentino. It was not my intention to waste anyone's time. I should not have put a template calling you two out. It was wrong of me to do that. I am sorry to have added more hostility to an already volatile environment. It is definitely something to reflect upon and remember. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you, I accept your apology. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|for example, this edit from TurboSuperA+ was poorly advised and rather childish.}}{{pb}}I agree, and posting it was a mistake. It was a response to being incessantly pinged, even after I said I submitted the evidence to ArbCom (which should have been the end of that exchange, really). In the end of the day, I am only human, with human flaws and failings. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Talk page in question has been locked. No further action needed Star Mississippi 00:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• Surprisingly, the user had previously made baseless canvassing remarks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#c-TurboSuperA+-20250308054500-The_Bushranger-20250308000400][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#c-TurboSuperA+-20250305221700-Voorts-20250228014400][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#c-TurboSuperA+-20250307105700-The_Bushranger-20250307092900] which nearly [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#Topic_ban_imposed fueled] their [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#TurboSuperA%2B_closes previous] ANI sanction, to the extent of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#c-The_Bushranger-20250308074800-TurboSuperA+-20250308064700 indefinite block]. {{U|The Bushranger}} advised them to drop the stick, but they continue to exhibit the full extent of aspersions. The user has failed to demonstrate civil and non-battleground behavior, repeatedly showcasing a clear WP:NOTHERE pattern. Perhaps an indef is imminent? Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for finding and documenting these - I see a concerning pattern. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This. The sort of behaviour on display here is nothing new from this editor, their WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern fuelled by aggressive bludgeoning of discussions and edit warring persisting even while on thin ice should say enough. I wouldn't blame an admin for handing out an indef, but a topic ban from Eastern Europe might suffice as well and give a chance to be productive elsewhere, assuming the intent here is to actually improve the site. TylerBurden (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: TylerBurden seems to think their actions in the topic area are perfect. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1285251755 this comment], for example, they call me a hypocrite and accuse me of "hiding" because I changed the colour scheme of my name (the text is exactly the same), while implying that i wouldn't like someone because of their nationality. I have brought my concerns about their behaviour towards me to their talk page, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerBurden&diff=prev&oldid=1276889492 they removed it] without a response. At the same time, they give themselves liberty to post on my Talk page and ping admins. "Rules for thee, but not for me", eh? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That last line coming from you is quite funny, given that you are constantly accusing people of violating policies, but you're never in the wrong for doing the things you accuse others of. Your misrepresentation of my comment perfectly shows this, insisting on a battle ending in a Russian victory despite it being WP:SYNTH, but the same kind of interpretations aren't allowed when they don't support your narratives. The one here with double standards is you.
• :::Mind telling me where I said you were hiding? I noted you changing your signature, and at the same time noted your blatant hypocrisy. You're overreacting once again. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|"Perhaps you think changing your signature would make people not see how hypocritical you are."}}

::::I understood "make people not see" as hiding. I don't think that's an unfair reading. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• :I don't know what a TBAN for closing discussions has to do with this. But for the record, one editor who voted against me in that ANI discussion got indef blocked for their behaviour in the topic area of the RFC I closed, and another editor got blocked as a sockpuppet. So if anything, my suspicions were not unfounded. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Didn't know where to put my response, so creating a new section.

• Regarding my previous infractions, yes, I made mistakes. I have received a TBAN from closing discussions, which I have respected and never once tried to WikiLawyer around.
• In January I was "reprimanded" on my talk page by an Admin. I created this account in November, there were some growing pains when I joined Wikipedia, I'm not going to hide that. Just like I don't hide any comments posted on my archive, they are all categorised and easily searchable.

• I honestly thought I was doing it all "by the book". I see other editors use templates liberally, they put sockpuppet templates (even when investigation is ongoing, which I know is wrong). But I don't see this kind of response to their actions.
• The reason I posted the templates was to give Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino a heads up that I suspect them of being canvassed. I didn't directly accuse them because I'm not sure. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1289225908 Here] I wrote that I could be wrong about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=1289226240 Here] I told Helpful Cat that their explanation how they found the RFC is plausible, and I tell them that if I am wrong that I am happy to retract/strike what I posted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&diff=prev&oldid=1289228237 Here] I tell them that if I am wrong I will give them an apology.
• The way I see it, my other option was to not let Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino know they are suspected of being canvassed, in which case they would not be able to defend themselves.
• My suspicions are made in good faith. I do not appreciate Helpful Cat calling it "secret evidence", alluding to it not existing, when it is against Wikipedia policy to post stuff from off-wiki, because of outing and other concerns. I also see that they went from "baseless accusations" to "whether that evidence actually identifies specific canvassed users". If there is evidence, then that accusation is not "baseless", by definition.

{{atopy

| result = Consensus is that no WP:CANVASsing took place. {{nac}} Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• As I said, I find Helpful Cat's explanation how they found the RFC plausible. I understand how false accusations feel, and I think Helpful Cat's actions can be explained as those of an innocent editor who has been falsely accused.
• I don't find Sonnyvalentino's explanation convincing at all. They said they found the RFC on a "list". What list? Where? Why that RFC in particular when they haven't shown interest in the topic area before? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Hello, I'm busy in IRL and find this whole thing weird tbh, hence my only very minimal engagement so far (on the Azov Brigade talk page) to say this is nonsense. I also don't understand if this accusation has any administrative stakes, what they might be, etc. It seems unlikely that I'm obligated to convince a random person on the internet, who has made an accusation without providing any tangible evidence, of anything. Presumably if admins (arbitrators?) take whatever purported evidence has been provided by TurboSuperA+ seriously they will contact me about it, and then I can respond to them? I can't imagine what it could possibly be. And given that TurboSuperA+ has abandoned his claim against Helpful Cat, merely due to, essentially, strong denials, it's hard to believe that the purported evidence was very strong in the first place.
• :It's easy for anyone of moderate curiosity to see where I found out about the RfC from: if you look at my user page, I have a series of bullet points under the headings Resources to come back to/Places to receive or give input/feedback. One bullet point contains links to lists of open RfCs for the History and Geography and Politics and Government topic areas, in one of which I would have found the RfC in question. This is what I clicked on, while taking a break from my other editing projects, and saw the Azov Brigade question, in which I have an interest. Indeed, at the top of my user page is a description of my interests including, "My interests include several recent and contemporary armed conflicts, especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe . . ." I have contributed toward a number of articles relating to wars with extremists involved in them, and the extremists themselves, especially around Georgia.
• :My reaction to this is it seems like a gigantic waste of time, and that if the energies devoted to paranoid feuding were devoted instead to actually reading sources and making good-faith attempts to improve articles in a holistic way, everyone would be better off. Anyway, if any admin/arbitrator etc. wants to ping me to discuss further, go ahead, but otherwise I don't see any reason to engage in this further. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|My reaction to this is it seems like a gigantic waste of time}} I agree with this assessment. Valuable volunteer time is being used to discuss this matter which could have been better spent editing articles. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Regarding {{tq|I don't find Sonnyvalentino's explanation convincing at all. They said they found the RFC on a "list". What list? Where?}}, you can find a list of all current requests for comment at WP:RFC/A. Editors can choose to participate in some RFCs but not others, and having shown an interest in the topic area before is not a prerequisite. In fact, it is often helpful to participate in RFCs in a topic area you aren't usually interested in, depending on the matter being discussed, as you can provide a less biased opinion. I am the editor who closed this RFC, primarily because there had been little added to the discussion which related to the question being posed in over a week. My rationale for closing was in no way based on the number of !votes posted for either option and entirely based on policy arguments put forward. Whether editors had been canvassed was not a factor. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks for your reply and for acknowledging that how I found the RFC was plausible. I do admit that I could have responded in a less heated manner - "there is a false accusation against you, but you can't see the evidence and therefore can't defend yourself, but the accusation will be made in public anyway" was genuinely quite off-putting and jarring.
• :I did want to make a few points:
• :{{tq|"I don't find Sonnyvalentino's explanation convincing at all. They said they found the RFC on a "list". What list? Where? Why that RFC in particular when they haven't shown interest in the topic area before?"}}
• :I find this implication quite uncomfortable: that users need to provide a "convincing explanation" or justify their participation in an RFC, or their presence is suspicious. Not only is this illogical (the RFC was posted on WT:UKRAINE, WP:NPOV/N and WP:RFC/A, the first two by TurboSuperA+ presumably intentionally to gather a range of opinions), it also has shades of WP:OWN, which I hope TurboSuperA+ does not intend.
• :Sonnyvalentino has also written a detailed explanation above of how they found the RFC (which frankly, they should not have had to do because as Adam Black pointed out, RFCs are open to all editors), which will hopefully be the end of these accusations.
• :This is also the inherent problem with public accusations based on secret evidence - we cannot prove a negative ("Prove that no one contacted you off-wiki!"), so we end up jumping through hoops trying to prove our legitimacy as participants ("Prove where you found the RFC!" "Prove that you were interested in Ukraine-related articles before this!") - which again, we should not have to do, and no editor has the right to gatekeep other participants.
• :{{tq|"my other option was to not let Helpful Cat and Sonnyvalentino know they are suspected of being canvassed, in which case they would not be able to defend themselves."}}
• :I must say this would have been much better. If you had limited yourself to emailing ArbCom, and ArbCom had found your evidence credible, they would presumably have contacted us directly to investigate, at which point we would have had the chance to respond to allegations against us. If ArbCom had not found your evidence credible, or if they had but accepted our explanations, there would have been no public accusation and no aspersions cast on us.
• :Instead, what you did was the worst of both worlds: the accusation is public, but because the evidence is secret, we cannot meaningfully defend ourselves anyway.
• :Alternatively, you could also have asked us in a civil manner how we had found the RFC, in which case we would have explained what we've now been forced to explain here, rather than tagging our comments with an accusation and forcing us to refute it (and I don't find this distinction {{tq|"a heads up that I suspect them of being canvassed. I didn't directly accuse them because I'm not sure"}} very meaningful; "I suspect you of misconduct" is still an accusation).
• :(And because the accusation was made in the RFC itself, by a user who happened to disagree with both the users they were accusing and had been in a content dispute with one of them, it inevitably raised the concern of influencing the RFC by disqualifying certain opinions, even if this was not your intention)
• :{{tq|"I do not appreciate Helpful Cat calling it "secret evidence", alluding to it not existing"}}
• :This is not what "secret evidence" means. "Secret" does not mean "nonexistent" - secret evidence is exactly what it sounds like: evidence that is secret, that can't be publicly disclosed, and that I therefore can't respond to.
• :{{tq|"I also see that they went from "baseless accusations" to "whether that evidence actually identifies specific canvassed users". If there is evidence, then that accusation is not "baseless", by definition."}}
• :If there is evidence that canvassing is happening somewhere, but there is no evidence of which editors have actually acted on the canvassing, then accusing specific editors of having been canvassed is absolutely baseless.
• :For example: if there is a call to action on some external forum, but no evidence that anyone heeded it; or if there is evidence that some forum users heeded it, but there is no evidence of which Wikipedia accounts correspond to those forum users - then it is baseless to make accusations against specific Wikipedia editors.
• :Sorry, it's absolutely reasonable to demand that accusations against individuals be backed up by evidence against those individuals, whether that evidence is secret or public.
• :Anyway, since Sonnyvalentino has also now explained in great detail how they found the RFC, I hope the false accusations will be retracted, this matter can be closed, and we can move on with improving the article without casting aspersions on one another. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

For the reference of all, I'm posting the latest update from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Russo-Ukrainian War AN discussion, which Simonm223 opened to ask ArbCom if TurboSuperA+ really provided credible evidence of canvassing. The response from ArbCom is as follows:

{{tqb|We received a report of off-wiki canvassing that fell below the threshold of evidence that we consider to be actionable. Some editors were named as being possibly canvassed but there was no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed.}}

Since there was never any credible evidence, I request an apology and a retraction of the false and baseless accusations by TurboSuperA+, as well as a commitment not to make public unsubstantiated accusations in the future.

Even if TurboSuperA+ made the accusations in good faith, I find it alarming that they did so based on "evidence" that never credibly implicated any specific editors, which appears to call their judgment into question.

I believe the community may also wish to discuss more specific guidelines on how unproven but good-faith concerns of canvassing should be handled, or how accusations of misconduct with secret off-wiki evidence should be handled in general (since TurboSuperA+ makes a valid point that the existence of Template:Canvassed seems to encourage this kind of behaviour) - however, that may be beyond the scope of ANI. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Im think (yes) at the very least there now needs to be a very firmly worded warning that if they ever make a false accusation again publicly there will be sanctions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Having read the Arbitration case in full now I would agree that a logged warning for TurboSuperA+ at least is appropriate here. I certainly would not support a site block (as proposed above) as I do believe TurboSuperA+ did act in good faith - however they allowed the emotional intensity of a difficult page situation to cloud their better judgment. In addition I think @Chess makes a good point in the arbitration case - I think it'd be a good reminder to people that if they don't believe the evidence of canvassing they have is presentable in public they should not be making claims of specific editors being canvassed. If evidence must be private to avoid WP:OUTING then it should be fully private. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised to see TurboSuperA+ at ANI again. I don’t believe the editor currently has the temperament for engaging in contentious topics, and this is compounded by inexperience in handling editorial conflict. That said, I do believe the editor has the potential to be a productive contributor to the project. For now, I would recommend avoiding political topics and would support a topic ban until the editor demonstrates an improved ability to collaborate constructively. Thanks!! Nemov (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Ironic coming from an editor who [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GoToComment/c-Nemov-20250222052200-Suspected_sockpuppets_7 accused me] without evidence of being a sockpuppet, made a vague report without diffs, saying {{tq|"Could be a big coincidence, but maybe not?"}} Based on vibes alone, a CheckUser was run. SPI page says at the top that diffs are required. Did Nemov get dragged through ANI for it? No. An editor even told them [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GoToComment/c-Pbritti-20250319145400-Nemov-20250319145000 Keep up the good work!] What good work? Baselessly accusing others of being sockpuppets?{{pb}}My suspicion regarding the two editors in question was misplaced, but as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. I even apologised for it.{{pb}}Still waiting on your apology, @Nemov. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Sorry, I don't mean to hammer this point after TurboSuperA+ has apologised, but {{tq|"as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless"}} is a total misrepresentation of ArbCom's comments. ArbCom said there was {{tq|"no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed"}}. Frankly, it's concerning that TurboSuperA+ still doesn't grasp this. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 09:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::There was evidence of canvassing, just no evidence that any editors in particular were canvassed. Would it have been better if I marked the whole RFC as canvassed with {{canvass warning}}?{{pb}}You even said yourself {{tq|"For example: if there is a call to action on some external forum, but no evidence that anyone heeded it; or if there is evidence that some forum users heeded it, but there is no evidence of which Wikipedia accounts correspond to those forum users - then it is baseless to make accusations against specific Wikipedia editors."}} {{pb}}I agree, it is baseless to make accusations against specific Wikipedia editors in this case. However, my accusation of canvassing happening in regards to the RFC was not baseless, and is in fact supported by evidence. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tq|"Would it have been better if I marked the whole RFC as canvassed with {{canvass warning}}?"}}
• ::::Yes, absolutely, because that would have been a general caution, not an accusation against any specific users expressing any specific opinions.
• ::::As you said yourself, because there was no evidence that any specific editors had been canvassed, the accusations you made against specific editors were baseless. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Indeed, and I apologised for it. But the accusation of canvassing overall on the RFC was not baseless. I misapplied the template, that is my mistake. I should have used the canvass warning template on the whole thread. You live and you learn. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::But you never made a general accusation that there was canvassing on the RFC (which wouldn't really have been an accusation anyway but a general alert); you accused two specific editors of being canvassed, and that was baseless.
• ::::::Sorry, it's concerning that even after ArbCom explicitly said not only that your evidence was not sufficient to be actionable, but that it included no credible evidence against any specific editors at all, you're still wikilawyering about whether your accusations were baseless or not. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{tq|you accused two specific editors of being canvassed, and that was baseless.}}{{pb}}I agreed, said it was a mistake on my part and apologised for it.{{pb}}{{tq|that it included no credible evidence against any specific editors at all,}}{{pb}}But it was evidence of canvassing Wikipedia editors to the RFC so that they would !vote on it in a certain way. {{pb}}Now it feels like you're just throwing whatever you can hoping something sticks. People get falsely accused on Wikipedia all the time. Rarely do they get so much as an apology after. You got your apology. You're not happy with the fact that you've been absolved of any wrongdoing, and are trying to argue that canvassing isn't canvassing unless specific editors can be tied to it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::@TurboSuperA+, @Helpful Cat without making any judgement on who, if anyone, is right or wrong here, it is probably about time this particular discussion was just dropped. Arguing back and forth repeatedly while adding very little substantively new with each successive comment is not helping anyone. There may be other matters to discuss here about wider policy, but the accusations and evidence of canvassing have been thoroughly covered. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I agree, I'll stop here. Thanks. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:For the record, TurboSuperA+ did apologise here. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note, ArbCom discussion now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 131#Clarification request: Russo-Ukrainian War AN discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah. Our current policies have problematic language. For example, WP:HA in its list of exceptions regarding outing states {{tqq|If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority.}}

:I believe, and I think experience on this notice board has shown, that pointing to confidential evidence that cannot be discussed is highly disruptive. There is no way to evaluate evidence, no opportunity to rebut it, and all the power in the discussion lies with the discloser.

:The only way that offsite confidential evidence should be handled is confidentially. That is, no mention should be made to confidential evidence. I know this is frustrating to the person who reported the evidence, but is the only way to be fair to all the parties involved. The reported must trust the recipient of the evidence to properly handle the situation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I hadn't thought of that but of course you are right. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::WP:ASPERSIONS says {{tq|A simple statement onwiki that private evidence exists and was submitted may be appropriate, but additional details may not be appropriate.}} This is what I did. I guess that "may be" gives a lot of play room. The Template:Canvassed page similarly doesn't provide any help or guidance regarding its use.{{pb}}I admit that I misapplied the template and will be more careful in the future. @Chess pointed out that the {{SPI-notice}} was removed following a similar kerfuffle. Can we do the same for {{canvassed}}? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The user has only 2,000 edits, but more than 10% of those are to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, in which they have bludgeoned disagreeing editors to an extreme extent. Let's take a look at a section on that page, North Korean troops are no longer involved. There are some deep threads that mostly consist of TurboSuperA+ arguing with other editors. {{u|FOARP}} aptly said, {{tq|Can you just drop the stick on this one and stop bludgeoning this issue?}}, to which TurboSuperA+ replied by bludgeoning. They were the only editor supporting the change, but refused to drop the stick. This isn't the only instance of this on this talk page. In the thread above, about changing the infobox, TurboSuperA+ commented almost 30 times, continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this. Later down we see TurboSuperA+ asking {{u|Placeholderer}} a question. They answer the question. TurboSuperA+ says, {{tq|That doesn't answer the question.}} Placeholderer responds, {{tq|I explicitly did answer your question.}} If that isn't IDHT, I don't know what is. {{pb}} Now this is all well and good, but the final nail in the coffin is Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025). At Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025)#Result parameter, TurboSuperA+ commented over 30 times, reverting almost as many times on the main article. For two months, against multiple editors, they have POV-pushed to claim, against sourcing, that the campaign ended in March. Simply incredible POV-pushing, bludgeoning, and ownership of these articles. To that end, I propose a topic ban from Ukraine, Russia, and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, broadly constructed. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm involved here, obviously, but I did find their editing on the North Korean troops topic, and on the topic of whether the US/NATO should be listed in the infobox, incredibly tendentious - they admitted that the discussion was "pointless" but then just carried on and on and on. I don't see their contribution here as constructive. If the later discussions were a continuation of that behaviour then a time-out to go and edit in other, less controversial areas is in order. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding my back and forth with @User:Placeholderer they themselves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B#c-Placeholderer-20250417153500-Slatersteven-20250416130900 wrote] on my talk page: {{tq|"For what it's worth, I don't think the back-and-forth with me should be taken as bludgeoning"}}. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{tq|For two months, against multiple editors, they have POV-pushed to claim, against sourcing, that the campaign ended in March.}}{{pb}}And yet those who oppose it haven't been able to get consensus to change the outcome, despite me not posting on the Talk page since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kursk_offensive_(2024%E2%80%932025)&diff=prev&oldid=1287588161 I tagged the result as disputed]. It has been some two weeks. It seems that editor consensus favours my edit. e.g.{{pb}}{{tq|The concern is Russian Victory or Ukrainian Defeat. If anyone is arguing for 'ongoing' it makes me a little confused.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1288195842 diff]{{pb}}{{tq|@Unknown00000000 as the editor who changed my addition of "Russian victory" to "Ukrainian defeat", please note the above conventions regarding Template:Infobox military conflict.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1280153324 diff]{{pb}}{{tq|We could write "Ukrainian defeat", but it is generally not allowed.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1283389215 diff]{{pb}}Even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1281107115 Slatersteven wrote] {{tq|"Certainly this seems to be the case."}} regarding the offensive ending.{{pb}}And so on... All of the editors are free to change their mind at any time, but it doesn't look like they did. And I repeat again, I have not posted to the talk page or edited the Kursk offensive 2024-2025 article for the last two weeks on purpose, to allow the opposing editors to build a consensus without my input.{{pb}}This can be seen as attempt by @Chicdat to bypass consensus regarding the result of Kursk offensive (2024–2025) by forum shopping. The talk page is replete with links to WP:RS and even TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:*{{ec}}Apparently I'm forum shopping. Weird. In my book, forum shopping looks a little more like this: (hidden) on request of several editors That is forum shopping. I'm not asking for any consensus to be overturned (as no consensus was ever found – the discussion is ongoing), so I'm not forum shopping. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:I am unrelated to this dispute and have no intention of wading into it, but no, that is not at all, not in the slightest, what forum shopping means. You can very politely and calmly raise an issue in a venue that you deem more favourable to your views or before a responsible individual that is likelier to act on your behalf. This need not even be a duplication of a previously existing request – it could be an initial request but raised through an unintuitive channel.

:*:The fact that you seem to think forum shopping is equivalent or at least limited to begging and/or extorting is worrying, especially from an apparently seasoned user. I would also ask you to please use a normal font. This is disruptive and the only reason I am replying to you is out of annoyance at having come across this when scrolling down at ANI. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:@Chicdat, if you don't refactor this to tone down the gigantic allcaps I think you're seriously running the risk of catching a block from a passing admin who's on their last frayed nerve. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::That would be pretty stupid. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:::{{selfwhale}}Hidden. Yeah, I know what forum shopping is. It was an exaggeration, and not a very good joke considering where it's being posted. Forum shopping is when an editor posts the same or similar posts at multiple different places, in the hope of getting the result they want. E.G. if an editor posts a complaint against an editor at ANI and ANEW at the same time, or when an editor simultaneously opens an RM for a page and asks several admins who might support to move it. But more importantly, ANI is ANI, not a place for hyperbole. The eye instantly jumps to that text, I know. That was tasteless, poor humor that hyperbolizes policy. I don't really want a vexbysterang for something as stupid as this. A well-earned trout. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::::Thanks. A self-inflicted ANI wound is painful to watch from the sidelines too. And I can understand why you're annoyed enough that it was probably really satisfying to write at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Er, yeah, that's not forum shopping. At all. Forum shopping is posting the same thing at multiple boards (i.e. posting at AN, and ANI, and ANEW-) in hopes that one of them will produce the result you want, especially if it's reposting on other boards after the initial one didn't produce that result. The tone, wording, etc. doesn't matter - it's possible to entirely civilly forum shop. I'd strongly suggest you re-read WP:FORUMSHOP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The response to my comment above shows that the editor still doesn't get it. Any time their behavior is addressed, they go on the offensive. On these topics the editor isn't helping the project and continues to be a time drain. Nemov (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I simply pointed out that you voting to TBAN me for false accusations is ironic, since you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet without any evidence. You never admitted your mistake nor apologised, whereas I both admitted to my mistake and apologised. Everyone who posts in an ANI thread should expect that their own behaviour will also be scrutinised. Now you're trying to deflect scrutiny by saying essentially that this thread is about me, not you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You should review WP:ASPERSIONS. Your responses aren’t helping your case here. I have nothing to apologize for, requesting a sockpuppet check is fairly routine, especially when an editor has no edit history, is behaving in a disruptive manner, is misapplying policies, and is editing the same topic as a previously blocked user. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet for far less and, frankly, I’m not concerned. Nemov (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|"editing the same topic as a previously blocked user"}}
{{strikethrough|Making stuff up doesn't help your case. I have never been blocked before. Please strike that out.}} On second reading, I see that you meant something else. It's the "as" that threw me off. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I've said above I think this is all pretty much indicative of the WP:BATTLEGROUND situation. TurboSuperA+ believed they were behaving correctly and when it was demonstrated they were not they apologized. Spurious SPI reports are, like tagging COIs on the basis of private evidence, allowed by Wikipedia, but they're not exactly best-practice either. It's all too common in CTOPs to try and remove new editors while established editors get grace based on edits elsewhere and SPI fishing expeditions are definitely part of that pattern of behaviour. I would encourage TurboSuperA+ to diversify their editing and to further develop their collaborative editing skills but they are far from the only person at that talk page who has bludgeoning and civility issues. I don't think TurboSuperA+ has clean hands here. They made mistakes. But I think WP:ROPE is appropriate in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Simonm223, Are you characterizing my innocuous SPI request, a pattern of behavior or spurious? If so you need to clarify your remarks, because I have submitted very few SPI and this one was approved for checkuser. This is the 2nd time in the past few days you have made inane[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1288427657] remarks about my good faith edits. I would caution you to work in good faith and stop making accusations about my motives. Nemov (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think it's clear I'm not very happy about comportment in general on that page. I was not, however, attempting to single you out. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak and reluctant support. I've noted that TurboSuperA+'s previous admin warning was also about baseless accusations of conspiracy against other editors, specifically in the Russia/Ukraine topic area.

:Now that ArbCom has confirmed that the "evidence" submitted by TurboSuperA+ contained {{tq|no credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed}}, I can't help but feel that these latest accusations are an escalation of that very specific pattern. Even if they believed they had evidence of canvassing in general, I struggle to understand how or why someone who has no credible evidence against anyone at all would immediately jump to choosing two specific users to publicly accuse of being canvassed - frankly, no possible explanation is flattering, good-faith or not, and at best it indicates a lack of judgment and a tendency for conspiratorial thinking that is not conducive to participation in a contentious topic.

:Editors who have a history of making groundless accusations, especially in one topic area, should not be able to continue doing so by hiding behind confidential evidence sent to ArbCom when it turns out this evidence was not credible (even if they truly believed their evidence was credible and their accusations were true).

:(Note: since TurboSuperA+ has pointed out an instance where another user raised a suspicion that they were a sockpuppet, I have to note that there's a difference between raising a suspicion for discussion at the designated page for such suspicions and providing an explanation on one hand, and unilaterally tagging users within an ongoing RFC with no explanation on the other)

:I also second the point about WP:OWN behaviour in this topic area, such as the heavy implication that users need to justify their participation in RFCs TurboSuperA+ has started ({{tq|"I don't find Sonnyvalentino's explanation convincing at all. They said they found the RFC on a "list". What list? Where?"}}).

:I also strongly endorse this statement: {{tq|"continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this"}} (emphasis mine). This is one of the most frustrating and consistent aspects of discussions with TurboSuperA+, where they misrepresent and strawman what other users say and use this to WP:BLUDGEON a point that no one is actually making. (For instance, I experienced this here and cited it in my original post). Participation in a contentious topic surely requires a baseline ability and willingness to accurately comprehend and engage with text, including both article text and comments by other editors.

:I recognise that this is a fairly major sanction, so I would be open to putting a time limit on the topic ban, for example. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Per Chicdat and evident track record, aggressive and WP:TENDENTIOUS editor spending a large amount of time in this CTOP is doing more harm than good. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support trout for aspersions at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. I haven't followed the other pages' discussions; Idk if they're substantially worse or not, but if they are then read this comment with that in mind. I'm more concerned here with what I perceive as civility issues than with POV pushing in mainspace, having not seen—in my limited focus (for this discussion's purposes) on Russian invasion of Ukraine—much in the way of unconstructive mainspace edits. It's challenging to keep up civility as a frequent minority perspective, and at times other editors contribute to general incivility, too Placeholderer (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef – I'm fairly convinced that this user has shown clear battleground behaviour. Whether through violating [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1279975300&diffonly=1] WP:BRD (initiated by another user [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1279904641&diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1279984895&diffonly=1]), edit-warring over the inclusion of contentious material [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1271473207][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1271469140][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1271679650], then [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_21# bludgeoning], which is problematic, I don't like it removal [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1272203221&diffonly=1], which was thankfully reverted [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1272204308&diffonly=1], or citing [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_blackmail&diff=prev&oldid=1269783907&searchToken=aznfmubahgi883wg6jwl65l5c][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_blackmail&diff=prev&oldid=1269786077] unreliable sources [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Rbc.ru_and_rbc.ua][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Anadolu_Agency] like RBC-Ukraine and Anadolu Agency. Now that we know their canvassing charges based on spurious evidence were nothing but a hoax and a total waste of time for ArbCom, and now they're misinterpreting the judgment while issuing a fauxpology by totally doctoring it as {{tq|as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless}}, it only makes things worse for their case. It's obvious that this user failed to WP:AGF, for which they were previously warned [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#Warning:_Assume_good_faith], and has serious I don't hear that / I don't think so issues. Doug had also previously warned them for this battleground behaviour [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1270036507], but unfortunately, in reply, Turbo said: {{tq|Stop threatening me. I have made 4 comments on the RFC, while Slatersteven has made 6.}} They have been found POV-pushing and inserting their WP:OR assertions (pinging {{U|MrOllie|Choucas0}}) on Vladimir Bukovsky. Given their previous accusations and aspersions toward other users, I'm inclined to support an indefinite block. The length of WP:ROPE has been shortened. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, behaviour falls below par for a CT, I also find their recent report at AE a bit battleground, the user had just been given a tban, which are notoriously unintuitive, and violated it. Turbo could've at least left a message at the user's talk page to give them a chance to self revert/ping the blocking admin there to explain it, but instead it was escalated to AE to try to get them indeffed. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I do think there's a tool that would be useful here and that may split the difference between a topic ban and doing nothing. I propose a Balanced Editing Restriction be imposed on TurboSuperA+ following the current Arbcom language concerning what such a restriction entails. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why is it that every time I visit the ANI, a new report against TurboSuperA+ is there? 🙏 This one seems to be really long, too. Is there any summary of what's happening here? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I guess because they are constantly causing problems and violating policies. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would concur with {{U|Nemov}}. It's not as surprising as you're making it seem, considering their last ANI resulted in a topic ban. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is an interesting proposal and I think it may be a good idea. Per WP:UBER, does an edit filter currently exist to implement this outside the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Are editors expected to count the number of edits they make per month, and the number of edits within the affected topic area, in order to comply with the restriction? Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure. I don't do much Wikipedia stuff on weekends ut will follow up with further details Monday. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Turbo accused two users with whom they were in dispute of being canvased (off wiki), they objected. There was a too and throw over at a talk page that derailed a thread. I then said "stop if you have a complaint, take it to ani", which one of them did. There was more tooing and throwing, then someone pointed out there was a lack of evidence of canvassing, so Turbo apologized, then there was more tooing and throwing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Addendum

The OP accepted the apology. then there was more tooing and throwing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is an accurate summary. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:The term you're looking for is "to and froing". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is the funniest example of over-correction for an accent I have ever heard/read. -- asilvering (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I wasn't going to say anything because I kind of liked the evolution of the phrase in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Dawnseeker2000}}

MOS:GEOLINK makes it clear that cities of birth should not be de-linked, but administrative region and country should. {{user|Dawnseeker2000}} is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1288971352&oldid=1287068648 aware of this]. Despite this, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Henry_%28footballer%2C_born_1979%29&diff=1289169053&oldid=1283468606 continue to remove links to towns and cities], something which has been an issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1279295759&oldid=1279179928 for some months now]. I have exhausted communication with them, so welcome assistance. GiantSnowman 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:MOS:OVERLINK specifically calls out London as shouldn't-link-if-obvious, so that was a good removal on their part. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::GEOLINK has (or should have) precedence, as it is more precise. GiantSnowman 18:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Precision isn't in question here. GEOLINK says {{tq|For a geographical location expressed as a consecutive comma-separated sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit.}}. OVERLINK says {{tq|In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked... Settlements or municipalities (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario)}} In my view, Do Not Link clearly overrides Link Only. And I see Dawnseeker has {{diff|User talk:Dawnseeker2000|prev|1279850780|pointed you at this information before}}. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, precision is in question here. The MOS conflicts, so which do we follow? I say GEOLINK, as applying directly to place names, is preferable to the more general OVERLINK. Are you going to enforce OVERLINK and remove place name links from yesterday's FA, William D. Leahy? GiantSnowman 19:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The thing is, taken to reductio ad absurdum, following MOS:OVERLINK to the letter would leave London (England) an orphaned article. Clearly that's not what is intended, but the thing is that common sense needs to be applied. IMHO, having the city, even a common, well-known one, linked in an article in the infobox and/or first-time-appearing-in-prose is entirely appropriate. Further IMHO assuming "everyone knows London, we don't need to link it" could well be taken as a subtle form of systemic bias - no, not every user is going to be familiar with London, and those who aren't are probably going to be outside the Anglosphere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Right, removing all the links would definitely be an issue, and that is not what I'm intending to do. London is a pretty good example, though maybe not completely representative of all the cities that I'm working on. I've just looked at the numbers and I came up with a crude estimate. It's about 26% of all the links to London. Many of these links will, of course, be reinstated, and that's fine. I'm not at war with the links.{{pb}}I do have a sense that the OP is at war so to speak. They've reverted me outright on a small handful of articles where they could have just reinstated the link. Throwing out my other work isn't necessary.{{pb}}This allegation of disruption comes about because of my date formatting work, which I've been doing since July 2019. It's the AWB settings file that focuses on municipalities, states, and countries. There's about 1700 entries and I target well known items. Working with obscure cities would also be problematic, so of course I don't do those.{{pb}}My take on the MoS is pretty close to what SarekOfVulcan said earlier: GEOLINK and OVERLINK can be seen to be at odds with one another, but stepping into the grey area a bit, one can sort of see that how I'm doing it does make sense. I follow OVERLINK in the sense that I'm unlinking well-known cities (the number of links to London and London, England total ~130K) and I'm also following GEOLINK because of the SEAOFBLUE component. {{pb}}It's probably fine that Snowman brought this here, but this is a pretty minor complaint considering that many of the links will be restored and that our readers can put the city name in the search bar. If no administrator action is taken here, or if this becomes stale, I'd ask Snowman to simply restore the offensive removal. Dawnseeker2000 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, it's petty, but you have continued to edit (in my view disruptively) and did not respond to my last tab;k page posts. All I want is for you to adhere to GEOLINK and stop de-linking cities. As the Bushranger suggests, where does it stop?! GiantSnowman 17:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::GEOLINK doesn't say that you must link cities, so it's impossible to adhere to it in that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It says "link only the first unit". That implies the first unit should be linked. GiantSnowman 17:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No, it says you shouldn't link the others. It says nothing about whether you must link the first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Given that the verbatim text of MOS:GEOLINK is {{tq|q=y|link only the first unit}}, I agree with GiantSnowman's interpretation; it is clearly an instruction to link something. Which something? The first unit only. If it had been phrased, "only the first unit may be linked", then it would be a prohibition (don't link more than 1st unit) rather than a mandate (link the first unit and nothing else). EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with {{ping|The Bushranger}}.

::::::In my opinion, maybe we should amend MOS:OVERLINK.

::::::{{tq2|Be conscious of your own demographic biases when determining whether certain terms have this level of recognizability – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less so for others.}}

::::::Not everyone is going to know what London is, and to never link to London or the other entities in that section would be unhelpful to those users. Maybe it should be removed. Wikipedia usually just links the first occurrence anyway, so it can’t be that cluttered. 2601:182:B00:8DA0:E16A:5628:7B82:6D3B (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I support reinserting the link and striking out provisions in OVERLINK page that tells you otherwise. This idea of "never link in the entire article" is unhelpful. 2600:1012:A021:7A65:5C8E:C69B:4D52:695 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} Pinged the OVERLINK talk page re: the reductio ad absurdum argument. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note that, despite this ongoing discussion and the points above, {{ping|Dawnseeker2000}} continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Douglass&diff=prev&oldid=1289666059 remove links to cities]. that is totally inappropriate. Can somebody please ask them to stop whilst we await consensus/resolution of this issue? GiantSnowman 09:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Iloveleetcodesomuch posted this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_India–Pakistan_strikes&diff=1289303109&oldid=1289302646] at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan strikes, saying {{tq|Failure to [remove some content] so will for sure attracted Indian Government to announce strict actions against this}}. Placeholderer (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's not WP:NLT in its strictest sense, since the user isn't saying they will take any legal action themselves. It may well be intended to cause a chilling effect, but considering certain shenaniganry it could well be believed to be an honest warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

User:DilovanKovlii always seems to edit while logged out after creating a new article. Here's the editing history of some of their new articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bedel_Berwar%C3%AE&action=history Bedel Berwar], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doski&action=history Doski], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muthanna_Amin&action=history Muthanna Amin]. The strange thing is that these IPs appear to be from different locations, so they could be using a proxy or some software to change their location. I've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DilovanKovlii&diff=prev&oldid=1288911659 asked] them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DilovanKovlii&diff=prev&oldid=1288913567 twice] why they keep doing this, but they fail to respond appropriately and simply blank their talk page without appearing to acknowledge what others have written. They've also created some questionable articles, see: Dilovan Kovli, which appears to be entirely a hoax. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{non-admin}} Out of interest I checked Dilovan Kovli the references appear to be nonsense, so I checked Doski and the first three references I checked also failed verification. They appear to be the result of either AI hallucinations or deliberate hoax. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:They seem to be {{userlinks|Jonathan duski}}, who is checkuser blocked but with no sockmaster or SPI case linked. I'm preaching to the choir, Cyclone already filed this at SPI here. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I thought the same, but they appear to be unrelated (as per the SPI). Struck comment since SPI is still ongoing. What also concerns me is that they fail to WP:ENGAGE with anyone at their talk page, and the lack of a response from them here was expected. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: Non-admin comment The SPI page was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289422123&oldid=1289406397 blanked] by the user in question. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 14:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given that, the very heavy overlap between them and {{noping|Jonathan duski}}, and the severe overlap in editing areas between the two accounts, especially the fact that Jonathan duski was the creator of the (AI-generated) previous incarnation of Dilovan Kovli - {{megaphoneduck}}. Blocked. I see Bbb23 had the same thought and pulled the trigger as I was typing this up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Before this gets closed, can an admin block User:SDFResearcher? Created Draft:Wahid Kovli with the same fake sourcing, uses similar AI generated edit summaries: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamar_Fattah_Ramadhan_Kuchar&diff=prev&oldid=1266466386] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Wahid_Kovli&diff=prev&oldid=1265910129] as our sockmaster: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barzan,_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=1286759790] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Zab&diff=prev&oldid=1286520651]. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|David Eppstein}} has been causing regular issues at WP:GAR for years, and I'd like for the community to weigh in. The way the GAR process usually works: someone notices that a Good Article has deteriorated so that it no longer meets the good article criteria, they add it to GAR, and a few people !vote to keep or delist. If there are interested editors, it sometimes becomes a talk page style dialogue where people work to fix up the article. The whole thing is very lightweight and procedural.

Except when a mathematics article is sent up for reassessment. At that point, David joins the discussion to challenge its delisting regardless of quality, and belittes the intelligence of the people involved for not understanding mathematics. He seems to believe that lowering an article's quality assessment is unfair to anyone who edits in the subject area, and this has more broadly become an attempt by David to stonewall any effort to send articles to GAR. Numerous editors have pushed back against this to no avail.

Examples:

• September 2023: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1 – Asked {{tq|What is someone with such an extreme anti-intellectual point of view doing editing Wikipedia?}} because AirshipJungleman29 said that Apollo 11 is a broader article than a prominent mathematician, and said that people are {{tq|bean counters}} if they believe that a 26,000-word article needs to be trimmed down
• January 2024: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Vector space/1 – Said that AirshipJungleman29's nomination of articles at GAR {{tq|comes across as selfish and thoughtless}} because he doesn't fix them all himself
• May 2025: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Matrix (mathematics)/1 – Criticized Z1720 for being {{tq|confrontational}} solely because Z1720 started the GAR without adding maintenance tags

The real trouble starts when this comes up at WT:GAN and is bludgeoned to death each time, with David challenging anyone who tries to explain the purpose of GAR to him:

• September 2023: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#We should never delist articles
• March 2024: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 31#Mathematics articles and adherence to GA criteria
• January 2025: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 33#Aggressive/adversarial reassessment campaigns
• May 2025: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Older GARs needing participation

We are still in the latter discussion, where David is again inciting conflict because he doesn't like that people are using GAR as it is intended. This is all over a simple quality evaluation process and it needs to stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:TBUA, no, why didn't you include the thing you said earlier today about the Neumann GA review where you accused everybody who !voted to retain the article as a GA as taking part in {{tqq|Canvassed WP:STONEWALLING}}? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#c-Thebiguglyalien-20250507182300-GreenLipstickLesbian-20250507175300] And when I disagreed with you, said I was {{tqq|going to bat for people who are deliberately slowing down a process just so they can artificially inflate the number of badges}}? I thought those statements had a bit of pizazz. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I assumed that the September 2023 WT:GAN discussion (including the evidence of canvassing, which was separate from David and belongs in a different ANI discussion) was sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But... pizazz! And ABF! We can't have an AN/I thread without that last one, can we? {{pb}} You've got a representation by the way, by the way. You said Eppstein said Airship "doesn't fix them all himself". What was actually said was that he felt they put articles up for review {{tqq|without any evidence of putting effort into cleaning up those articles yourself first}}. I mean, as you've established, the GAR review process involves very little WP:SOFIXIT; that's by design. It's not about article improvement, like you've said, it's purely about accurate talkpage ratings. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:What a severe violation of WP:AGF.

:The actual current situation:

:*I complained on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Matrix (mathematics)/1 that Z1720 was initiating GARs like the one on Matrix (mathematics) where the sourcing problems (which definitely required cleanup to maintain GA status) were not immediately evident because they were untagged. My issue here is that GAR is a process where the GAR nominator demands immediate work from someone else, often and in this case substantial work, at the threat of losing GA status for the article. For an article that is routinely watchlisted and maintained, cleaning up individual problems as they arise can be less onerous. And we have many GA-listed articles with stale cleanup tags suggesting that they are unmaintained. I requested more attention to those, and tagging instead of immediate GAR initiation to the articles that were maintained and had problems but were untagged.

:*Z1720 asked that I move the issues to WT:GAN, where I did, and where my comment was immediately severely misinterpreted by Thebiguglyalien and other GAR regulars as an attempt to slow down or halt the GAR process. For the record, I have no such intent; I think substandard and unmaintained articles should be brought to GAR. We have many such articles. My complaints are not about the existence of GAR, but about the apparent focus of the regulars on delisting as many articles as they can as quickly as they can by ambushing maintainers of maintained articles with sudden demands for immediate huge cleanup efforts, discouraging rather than encouraging article improvement.

:*While the GAN discussion was blowing up, Z1720 went to Shapley–Folkman lemma, an article that I created and was involved in the GA process for (although the nominator was someone else long-blocked for incivility), tag-bombed it (significantly differing from their previous behavior of suggesting GAR without the tag-bomb), and suggested on the talk page that it be brought to GAR. Naturally, the possibility that Z1720 was violating WP:POINT and WP:HOUND came to mind for me, but also the possibility that it might be a coincidence, as they bring many articles to GAR. I said as much on the talk page, and would have left it there. (And again, for the record, the Shapley–Folkman lemma article does need cleanup. I have started the cleanup process on it. The issue is not the cleanup request but its timing. Because Z1720 is demanding two big cleanups from me simultaneously, and because looking up sources for technical claims take significant time and effort, both cleanups will necessarily proceed at a slow pace.)

:*Instead, Z1720 escalated to WT:GAN and now Thebiguglyalien has escalated here.

:*In the course of discussion, Z1720 has exhibited multiple points on which they disagree with the written Good Article criteria and instead are enforcing stronger rules, two of those being idiosyncratic interpretations of what is reasonable to require sourcing for, instead of the WP:CRC interpration that the criteria link directly to, and an idiosyncratic interpretation that every paragraph must have a footnote marker at its exact end, differing from the GACR wording that every reasonably-sourced claim must be sourced anywhere before the end of the paragraph. This board is about behavior, but I think enforcing imagined rules in place of the actual consensus rules is problematic behavior.

:Perhaps now that we're here we can discuss the behavior of Z1720 and the dogpiling that Thebiguglyalien is exhibiting instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::No comment on the overall dispute here, but one note: {{tqq|an idiosyncratic interpretation that every paragraph must have a footnote marker at its exact end}} - this is hardly idiosyncratic. This is...honestly how I thought GA worked, and I presume many other editors as well. It's absolutely how WP:DYK works and that's a much lower bar than GA - I was honestly shocked to double-check and see that WP:GACR does indeed only mention 'reasonably challengable content' needs citation, as opposed to every paragraph requiring at least one citation at its end (presuming it's citing the the entire paragraph). I do have to wonder if that's because GACR is an older page that hasn't been updated to reflect changed community noms? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The disagreement here is merely that the requirement says that sourcing must happen no later than the end of the same paragraph, while Z1720 says it must be exactly at the end. As an example, look at the first paragraph of Matrix (mathematics)#Size; the actual claims in the paragraph are sourced, and followed by a simple unsourced example that falls under WP:CALC as not needing sourcing. Z1720 would demand a footnote for that example. That wording was added fairly recently; it is not left over from different standards of long ago. Perhaps it's because the sourcing requirement for GACR is based on putting thought into what needs sourcing rather than on just superficially checking that the footnote markers are placed in the positions they most frequently are placed. Another relatively recent change, again focusing on thought rather than superficial checks, is that GA reviewers are required to at least spot-check that sources say what they are claimed to be sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} Citation after text is it sourcing is how GA has worked for quite awhile, in line with the other quality assessment processes. The "no later than the end of the paragraph" has always been to ensure citation aren't placed at the end of sections or multiple paragraphs, I've not seen it used to add citations before text before. I suspect the GACR follows the older norms reflected at WP:V from the time when sources were rarer. CMD (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"After text it is sourcing" and "at the exact end of the paragraph" are two different things.

::::There are situations, though, where it is very inconvenient to place the citations after the material it is sourcing (text is the wrong word) and easily understood to put it before. The one that comes to mind for me is when a paragraph ends with a displayed mathematical equation. The convention has long been that the sourcing for such material goes at the end of the text just before the equation, even when the source covers the equation itself. Two reasons for this are that footnote markers in mathematical equations could easily be misinterpreted as part of the mathematics, because mathematical formulas also often involve bracketed numbers, and that the standard wikiformatting for these equations, <math display=block>..., does not allow anything but mathematical notation on the same line as the equation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure where you're getting the quote "at the exact end of the paragraph" from, it doesn't appear to be something I've said above or that you've said. I used text, I'm not sure what the purpose is for saying text is the wrong word and then giving an example that is specifically not text. CMD (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That wasn't you, it was Z1720, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1289317377&oldid=1289317141 here]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Helpful, although I'm not sure why it was then used as a reply to my comment. Are you stating that this was a key distinction for the page mentioned, in that the text sourced by a following citation that was not at the end of the paragraph? CMD (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It was a minor point, about the general topic of Z1720's GARs, in which Z1720 has typically provided only vague statements that they think an article doesn't meet the GA standards (statements that would not meet the standard of review even of many quickfails of GA nominations; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Matrix_(mathematics)/1&oldid=1288525432 example]) and, in effect, asks any would-be rescuer to read their mind about what can be done to make it meet the standards again. It turns out that Z1720's ideas of what the standards actually are do not match the written description of the standards, making this mind-reading game that much trickier. This point about where the citations need to go was one of the ways in which Z1720's standards and the written standards differ. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The expectations for citations to follow what they are citing was not invented by Z1720, it's a very basic convention. CMD (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Every paragraph should have a footnote at its end, but the notion that all footnotes must be at thge end is just plain stupid. This would result in paragraphs having very large numbers of citations at the end, and make it much harder to verify the facts in the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have given an example above of a paragraph that should not have a footnote at its end. "Every paragraph should have a footnote at its end" is too dogmatic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. Your example is a good one. The MOS also allows for citations before block quotations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Thebiguglyalien The scope of this discussion has grown way too large for any progress to be made on anything. At this point everyone is just laying out their grievances with the GA system and with each other. What do you want to get out of this discussion? Please be specific, so progress can be made, otherwise everyone will continue tearing each other apart to no productive end. I propose that once the scope is defined, an uninvolved admin step in to ensure comments do not leave that scope. IAWW (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::TBUA did exactly that in their opening post. Asking for them to restate it because other people are discussing GA isn't going to be useful. 166.205.97.70 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"This is all over a simple quality evaluation process and it needs to stop" is the closest I see to a specific goal. Does he want a topic ban? Because DE clearly doesn't have any intention of stopping, that is the only way I can guess @Thebiguglyalien will be satisfied. If this is the case, TBUA can you confirm this? And would you be happy with an uninvolved admin to step in and limit the scope if this discussion to that issue? IAWW (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Read the last line. He wants what he views as disruptive editing to end. You can directly engage with admins or community members if you have your own concerns about the scope of this thread. 166.205.97.70 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::166 is correct. What I want is for this to not be an issue at GAR (and FAR, I wasn't even aware of that issue), or any time someone challenges the content of a mathematics article. My hope was that the community expressing disapproval would have been sufficient. If the next step is a narrow topic ban, then that might be what's necessary, though I'm involved enough that I'm not the person who should be making that decision. I acknowledge that David has done a lot of work on mathematics articles for many years, and I don't want to see these stop coming to GAN for additional evaluation. But at a certain point, the incivility and ownership end up pushing away productive editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I regularly review good and featured articles. David Eppstein's behaviour has caused me to limit by reviews in mathematics articles because, instead of focusing on article content, their responses to my comments are filled with personal attacks and hostility towards me. Some examples below:

• March 2024 in the Emmy Noether FAR: "This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1212686414&oldid=1212641799]
• November 2024 in the Emmy Noether FAR: "Z1720's uninformed but relentless desire to remove all context and background for why Noether is considered so significant, and their failure to provide substantive comments in response to requests for detailed specifics, is noted but can be discounted." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254973750&oldid=1254567868] When {{u|Nikkimaria}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254973750&oldid=1254567868 removed the content] because it didn't focus on article content, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254994692&oldid=1254973750 DE restored it].
• May 3 in the Matrix GAR: claimed I was deflecting in the WT:GAN conversation after I asked that comments on my conduct be directed there (or at least not in the Matrix GAR). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_article_reassessment%2FMatrix_%28mathematics%29%2F1&diff=1288597594&oldid=1288580311]
• May 7: After posting a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289207508&oldid=1258180213 notice in Shapley–Folkman lemma], DE said I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289226255&oldid=1289207508 hounding him]. I do not check the article history or GAN before reviewing the article. If I did, I would see that DE has made a handful of minor edits over the past 5 years and was not the GA nominator, though was thanked by the GA nominator for helping.
• May 7: When another editor suggested that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289266046&oldid=1289260957 review another math article] (and I agreed to do so sometime in the not-near future), DE stated that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289273891&oldid=1289266046 he would consider my review as hounding him] as he had made significant updates to that article as well. He repeated accusations that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289302172&oldid=1289294998 I was targeting him], that I should conduct my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289273891&oldid=1289266046 "badge-police activity"] on articles with older tags, and to set up a GARR on articles that I have nominated to GAR. He later stated on WT:GAN that this was a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1289324335&oldid=1289322062 "not-very-serious request for a GARR"]
• May 7: Called me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1289335639&oldid=1289335316 "a self-proclaimed enforcer of GA rules"].

I just want to draw attention to status articles that need to be updated and cited. I've worked collaboratively in FARs like Chinua Achebe and in GARs to a lesser extent like Klamath River, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and on talk pages like Kali. I try to come back to re-review GAs when someone has made improvements, though sometimes real life gets in the way. Whenever I post a review or a GAR, my goal is to find someone interested enough in the article to make improvements, and maintain the article after the GAR is over so that a new GAR isn't opened in 15 years.

In regards to citations at the end of the paragraph: ANI is not the place for that conversation. I hope an RfC is opened on this topic in the appropriate forum. Others have disagreed with my interpretation of the GA criteria, and I think those discussions focused on the content. DE's disagreement with me goes beyond content and towards personal attacks, in my opinion. I am happy to address any questions others might have: feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding the behavioral issue, I recently had a dispute with David Eppstein and I did not find his demeanor to be collegial or any tendency toward self-reflection. While my report (at admin review) did not result in any overturning of his action, which may have been because I did not file it here or made it about rollback use instead of overall behavior, I was struck by his rudeness and his unwillingness to compromise or to seek reconciliation while steamrolling others in pursuit of his own opinion. In my view that is an WP:ADMINACCT issue. I see a similar thing happening here. I think admins have long been expected to collaborate and seek feedback and to respond humbly when someone criticizes their action. Andre🚐 01:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I have also had negative experiences with David Eppstein. It is my experience that he cares little about civility and is always convinced he is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. This whole drama is because David Eppstein is outraged that the entire GAR process does not bend to his whims. How dare the entire website not act in a way that's convenient to his schedule. Review all the linked discussions and this theme becomes overwhelmingly clear. Couple this with habitual incivility and you're left with someone who is failing to live up to the standards we expect for administrators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Re "This whole drama is because David Eppstein is outraged that the entire GAR process does not bend to his whims.": [citation please]. This board has rules about making claims about other editors that cannot be backed up.
• ::Some editors appear to disagree with my belief that a GAR could be an opportunity for a constructive review process that improves an article, and instead appear to prefer a GAR process that is as quick and as focused only on delisting as it can be. That is a disagreement, but we can all have disagreements, they are not the same as demands, and they do not usually cause problems. What I am frustrated by is that that every time I express the opinion that GAR should aim for constructive improvement rather than aiming for delisting, a group of people whose names you would recognize among the opinions here twist what I say into the opinions of an imaginary strawman, shout down the strawman, and then drag me here to ANI for having the temerity to have said the things their imaginary strawman said. But frustration is not outrage and it is not a demand that the entire process do what I say.
• ::So if you are going to make accusations here, on ANI, about my attitude and my behavior, that I believe to be contradictory to my actual beliefs, I think I am in the right to demand proof. That is an actual demand. Proof or retraction, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That is clearly a personal opinion for which no true proof can be provided. You're demanding proof you know can't be provided because its a personal opinion about your intentions... So its hard to see how you are making that demand in good faith... Even at face value you're demanding a retraction because you know that proof doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So you admit that you are making up a false and unprovable mischaracterization of my beliefs, on ANI, and yet feel no shame and no need to retract your statement? This sort of mistreatment of other editors here should be sanctionable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I am not Trainsandotherthings but even if I was that wouldn't be a justified response... Chill out dude, its your nasty attitude and incivility thats the biggest issue here and you're doubling down on that when you should be apologizing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Bro can only be expected to argue with so many people at the same time. jp×g🗯️ 04:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{Reply|JPxG}} That doesn't seem to excuse the conduct, the issue isn't that they confused me with the other editor the issue is that their conduct is inappropriate no matter who its directed at... It doesn't get any more civil if its a response to Trainsandotherthings, its actually worse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Z1720: you are misrepresenting several of my comments. For instance, you write "said I was hounding him" and "stated that he would consider my review as hounding him". What I actually wrote was that although it would be easy to interpret your behavior as hounding, per AGF I was not doing so (because it could well have been coincidence) and would not do so unless there was more evidence such as following me to another article. And it would have stayed at that statement of AGF on that talk page if you and Thebiguglyalien had not escalated it first to WT:GAN and now here. Take responsibility for the drama you are stirring up yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is that a misrepresentation of the hounding comment? Your comment "I'm sure, per WP:AGF, that the timing of this has nothing to do with WP:POINT, WP:HOUND, and the fact that we have been having a somewhat heated discussion on WT:GAR, but you must realize that as an article on my watchlist and that I significantly contributed to the Good Article nomination of, I will contribute to cleaning up at least some of the uncited statements, the ones that really do need cleaning up." feels sarcastic... If you were actually AGFing and didn't mean to at least cast light aspersions or give a warning why would you write that sentence at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::... never mind that we have no idea what articles may or might not be on David Eppstein's watchlist, nor yet any idea which articles he is or is not moved to clean up. Ravenswing 05:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you really care to know the ones I consider myself already involved in, rather than in making some kind of rhetorical point, I have a list on my user page. You could also look at the initial GA review, although for the case of the Shapley–Folkman lemma it would have been easier and more informative to look at who created the article. I might step in on others, but they wouldn't raise any suspicions from me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, as I said at WT:GAN the other day, we cannot expect a community process to revolve around any one editor's workflow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The rhetorical point is that we are none of us mindreaders nor prophets, and I would further expect that an expert mathematician would be familiar enough with symbolic logic so as not expect others to equate a list of "Good articles" on one's talk page with those actively on his watchlist. (Come to that, I don't necessarily expect of every editor that their watchlist includes all of their article creations; mine doesn't, for one.) Ravenswing 11:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Getting back on topic you don't appear to be making a real AGF assertion, you do appear to be making claims or threats regarding misconduct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I can see how someone coming into this with an assumption of bad faith could read my assertion of good faith as not itself made in good faith. Regardless, my intent was exactly what I said, first of all that I had good faith that the step from the matrix article to the Shapley–Folkman lemma article was merely a coincidence despite the possibility of interpreting it in otherwise, second that I did indeed intend to work on rescuing both articles, and third that working on rescuing two articles at once would necessarily cause a slowdown in both rescues. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That isn't an assertion of good faith any more than "I can't because WP:NPA, but I would call you X, Y, and Z" would be an honest assertion of NPA... You appear to be fluent in English so should be aware that the meaning of your comment would be a claim or threat regarding misconduct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:GAR: {{tq|Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.}} The GAR nominator must be a subject matter expert on the article's subject area, and be prepared to work on the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::"The GAR nominator must be a subject matter expert on the article's subject area" where are you getting that from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::On this point I agree with HEB and disagree with Hawkeye7. It is not reasonable to expect GAR nominators to be subject experts because there are too few GAR nominators and too many subjects for them to be experts in all of them. And on the two articles that triggered this discussion, Z1720's assessment that the articles were in need of rescue or delisting was entirely accurate, regardless of expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is not what the quoted text even remotely means and I ask that you drop this idea right here and now. I don't need a PhD to tell that an article is lacking citations or out of date. This sort of gatekeeping is entirely inappropriate. For the area I am in fact a subject matter expert in, I resent the idea that anyone not extremely familiar with trains should be banned from initiating a GAR on a train article. If anyone said "Hawkeye7 should never do a GAR on trains because he isn't a subject matter expert in that area" I would call them out. What you're suggesting is simply ridiculous and would only serve to completely kill the GAR process and cause a major chilling effect.

::A nominator needs to engage with the discussion and work with other editors. They do not need to have a decade's worth of study of the subject. This is a general interest encyclopedia, not a research journal. Gatekeeping is the antithesis to Wikipedia. We literally call it "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: {{tq|The parent article should have general summary information like a lead, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered.}} So, as we drill down further, more expertise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::...I can only assume you're being facetious/sarcastic? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That doesn't make sense, please explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your response does not seem to even remotely engage with Tatt's point, and it's easy to see why: you haven't a leg (or even a toe) to stand on as far as your assertion that policy somehow supports such a notion. In fact, policy and community consensus could not be any more consistent and absolute in repeatedly and vociferously rejecting such an idea, going back to the earliest days of the project and continuing through the present. Tatt is not being hyperbolic in the least when they note that what you propose a currently operative rule is actually the very antithesis of our policy language and community consensus on the issue, and contrary to core principles of the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, yeah, it'd sure be swell if every editor was an expert on the subject matter of articles with which they interact. That's never been the case, we could scarcely prove it if it was, and we all know the propensity of people to inflate "I took a couple classes in that at university" to being shortlisted for the Fields Medal. Ravenswing 05:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{small|As we pause to remember our former colleague Essjay Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::I think it is not too revealing to say without naming names that we have had at least one actual Fields medalist among our editors, years ago. Sadly he seems to have stopped editing after one too many of his creations got nominated for deletion by editors not sharing his sense for what was important to cover. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Presuming all that's actually true, it would be dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by the number of people who claim unearned expertise as the reason why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Beyond that, what is considered important to cover is a complex issue hammered out painstakingly by the community, evolving over the last two-plus decades. It is not an issue left -- say -- to any one prestigious mathematician's ex cathedra decrees. (Never mind that, c'mon: you're not seriously inferring that mathematicians have any more collective sense of consensus of what's important or not than folks from any other walk of life?) Ravenswing 10:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"Sadly he seems to have stopped editing after one too many of his creations got nominated for deletion by editors not sharing his sense for what was important to cover." Do you mean he didn't share the community's understanding of WP:NOTABILITY? I have a hard time spinning that as a community failure rather than a personal one on the part of the medalist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think it would be really great if those of you in the peanut gallery knocked it off. Thanks in advance. --JBL (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Says the peanut gallery... Glass house man. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::/ jp×g🗯️ 04:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|The GAR nominator must be a subject matter expert on the article's subject area, and be prepared to work on the article.}} Fortunately this is simply not true, but if we were to implement this as a rule (and I assume that for fairness we would also require that all GA nominators prove their subject matter expertise also) we could follow it up by shutting down the entire GA process as completely pointless, which would save a lot of angst all round. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::This has to be a joke, right? It's like saying FAC reviewers have to be "subject experts" (nevermind how you even define that) despite there already being a lack of reviewers. This mindset creates so many issues and apparently doesn't factor in a few things, such as the legitimate lack of reviewers, some people only having "expertise" in very niche topic areas, and people being unable to carry out QPQs. Absurd. — ^EF⁵ 14:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: I have never interacted with David Eppstein. By my count, 5 users have provided diffs strongly supporting allegations of poor conduct. These include rudeness, uncollegiality, entitlement, belitting, and paranoia over "hounding". Z1720, whose content reassessments I often disagree with, says they are avoiding an entire subject area because of him—this is just a loss for the project. Another admin told David only days ago that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=1288631806 neither project nor contributors should bend] for a single editor, suggesting this is a long-term pattern. It is unacceptable for any editor to call another [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Vector_space/1&diff=prev&oldid=1200111662 selfish], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Vector_space/1&diff=prev&oldid=1200111662 thoughtless], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254973750&oldid=1254567868 uninformed], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_von_Neumann/1&diff=prev&oldid=1176735878 anti-intellectual]. GAR exists for a reason. Calling people [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShapley%E2%80%93Folkman_lemma&diff=1289302172&oldid=1289294998 the GAR police] is not acceptable. There is no need to AGF if an editor consistently demonstrates this behavioural pattern. Making disputes about editors instead of content is pointlessly inflammatory and escalatory. Our expectations for administrator behaviour are surely higher than this; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254994692&oldid=1254973750 restoring] the personal attack removed by Nikkimaria is egregious. In light of these diffs and their shared locations, I propose a 1-year topic ban from GAR/FAR. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I’d support a topic ban of some length. ^EF⁵ 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::The 2025 WT:GAN discussions (May and January) seem like healthy, albeit spirited, discussion to me, and I don't think David is the only one who has reservations over GAR processes (see comments by {{u|XOR'easter}} and {{u|Chiswick Chap}} in the same discussions). There are also some constructive suggestions made, eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_33#c-David_Eppstein-20250115064700-Generalissima-20250115064200]. With respect to the other diffs, reading some of these discussions, your characterisation seems brusque and devoid of context. The overall point seems reasonable: David could try harder to avoid escalation. There's also other editors in these discussions the same advice could apply to. I appreciate there's some frustration, perhaps justifiable from each editors' perspective, and these seem to involve the same editors over years so perhaps some of it is built up.

::However: this is at ANI because of the May discussion in which I don't see anything wrong, and the 3 exchanges otherwise cited span 2 years (ie: it's not clear that there's an ongoing conduct issue requiring intervention). {{tq|I propose a 1-year topic ban from GAR/FAR}} seems really premature and unhelpful, aside from also being worse for encyclopaedia content. Bans are never first resort, and this whole issue seems nowhere near a level requiring intervention. Many of the editors in these discussions are immensely constructive and valuable contributors, who I'm sure can work out their disagreements. AFAICT this hasn't been at ANI before(?), so perhaps people will find ANI therapy useful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Calling people "selfish", "thoughtless", "anti-intellectual" etc. is not acceptable for any reason. ANI and ArbCom have on multiple occasions indef'd users who were in the right because of the way they went about it. The way David has gone about this is wrong. Administrators should comply with basic conduct policies. Regarding {{tq|being worse for encyclopaedia content}}, frightening others editors away from reviewing content is also worse for content; this was attested by one regular contributor to the area above. Regarding past threads, I can see 2 posts about David's conduct at ANI before: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#David_Eppstein 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106#User:David_Eppstein_prejudiced_comments_and_demeaning_attitude_requires_attention 2]. I'd bet that most majority of editors have never had an ANI thread made about them.

::: I'm not opposed to trouting, but 2 years is not a short length of time. I proposed a T-BAN of half that length. If a similar matter were raised again (with new evidence), I would propose de-sysoping instead. At the very least, David should acknowledge he lost his cool, made assumptions about other editors, and unwisely aired them. Accusing others of hounding you (i.e., somehow knowing what's on your watchlist) is just silly. At that point, wondering why people assume bad faith is even sillier. No one is attacking an editor by asking if an article should be de-listed; as PMC said, the system should not bend around one person. But no one should be forced to AGF when someone's calling a volunteer contributor "selfish". That's enough for a temp T-Ban – 6 months, 1 year – for some amount of time that elicits some reflection if none is otherwise forthcoming. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Please point to a single place anywhere in the current discussion where I have "lost my cool". Once. I am not going to acknowledge doing something that I have not done. Evidence, please, or retract your claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: The title of this ANI thread is "David Eppstein and Good Article Reassessment". It is broader than one GAR. The first line is: {{tq|David Eppstein has been causing regular issues at WP:GAR for years.}} It is never okay to call people selfish, thoughtless, anti-intellectual, or accuse them of being "the GAR police". No one is hounding you by nominating articles you watch because nobody knows what is on your watchlist. Because 2 editors have said they avoid any article you contribute to, it's possible that publicising your watchlist might actually have the opposite effect. Multiple editors have provided evidence of poor conduct now and said you made them uncomfortable. If this happened to me, it would be a wake-up call. Do you stand by your comments in the diffs that were linked, or can you recognise they were completely inappropriate no matter how you felt? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@ProcrastinatingReader {{tq|Many of the editors in these discussions are immensely constructive and valuable contributors, who I'm sure can work out their disagreements.}} I don't think it's actionable advice to tell Z1720 to obtain an advanced degree in Mathematics so that he'll be acceptable as a good article review initiator to David Eppstein. More seriously, I'm not sure how you can read the May discussion and not see a conduct issue. There's a consistent issue, every time GAR comes up (which is recurring, but infrequent), that David sees GAR as some mix of threat/attack and he takes it out on whomever has the temerity to invade his space. This can't be talked out because he's not prepared to compromise, and his treatment of other editors is clearly having a chilling effect. Mackensen (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::On the maths degree bit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-David_Eppstein-20250508183700-Horse_Eye's_Back-20250508035900 above] he clarifies that is not his position. I confess I still don't see a strong issue in the May discussion, but otherwise and more generally yeah, I agree that David has strong opinions on GAR(s) and has sometimes expressed these in an inflammatory way. I just don't think this section is yet beyond hope of achieving an amicable and voluntary resolution, which is always preferable. Boldwords sanctions discussions short-circuit that process somewhat, as people just become more defensive. I suppose the question to David would be like what ImaginesTigers poses above: whether he regrets any comments made and if/how he will adjust his approach at all going forward, assuming no action is taken here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was going to step away from this discussion for a while, but since you asked a direct question: I regret that my attempts at making GAR a more constructive process have made no progress towards that end. It seems likely to me that this failure to make a difference is the result of my wording not being careful enough to prevent it from being misinterpreted as an attack rather than as an attempt at constructive criticism, and in that sense is my own fault. I do not see any future in continuing to push for any change in the GAR process, will step back from the current GAR discussion on WT:GAN, and have no intention of initiating or participating in future discussions about the GAR process. However, none of this affects my interest in bringing articles up to GA standard, maintaining them at that standard, responding to problems identified with them through GAR or otherwise, and reviewing GA nominations (for which I just received a barnstar), despite explicit proposals from participants here that I should be banned from all GA-related processes. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: I think these kinds of attitudes have been allowed to fester for way too long. It's not OK for people who attempt to use normal Wikipedia processes to get badgered and attacked. Some people apparently feel that every nomination is a very personal affront to them, and their attention is being "demanded" (see above). In reality, no one is demanding anything of them, the nomination has nothing to do with them, and their attention is not required. They are not personally required to save the article. If they could understand this, I think their interactions would be less personalized and antagonistic. I think most of us need occasional reminding that Wikipedia does not need you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::In fact I feel badgered and attacked by many of the people here, the ones who run GARs, every time I request them to put effort into explaining why they think an article is substandard. That badgering and attacking is evident here. It is evident in the very fact that my completely civil requests in the discussion at WT:GAN have been dragged here to ANI again, and that editors here are unapologetic about twisting any attempt at discussing their process into "outraged demands". It is also a big part of why I didn't put as much effort as some other editors into the Emmy Noether FAR after it blew up in much the same way, only coming back to it much later as it still dragged on.

::That said, your "Some people apparently feel that every nomination is a very personal affront to them" comes across as yet another twisted exaggeration of my actual attitude (which is that the GA nomination and review process, when done well, provides a very helpful collaborative feedback mechanism for improving articles and I would prefer that GAR nominations make an attempt at that collaboration instead of being as confrontational and constructive-criticism-free as they too often are). Because of this repeated pattern of misrepresentation of my position, by you here and by others above, I read the last line of your comment as directed at me and telling me to stop editing Wikipedia. As such, it is a continuation of the same badgering and attacking that you are, out of the other side of your mouth, decrying. Please stop doing that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::: To me, this comment reflects the same problem basic problem... "Wikipedia does not need you" is about understanding that we are cogs in a machine (i.e., GAR is not your responsibility to burden). You said, "I read the last line of your comment as directed at me" and it perfectly captures the entire reason this thread exists. Of course it is; but it isn't an attack. It's plain and descriptive. This entire thread exists because you're taking article reassessment personally and attacking people. What NRP said isn't an attack. Nor is initiating GAR an attack on you or a request for your time. Two editors now have outright stated they avoid any article with your name on it. Seven have attested to uncivility. I didn't know who you are until today, but it took 15 minutes of reading to see you were taking content reviews personally. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That comment contains no attacks I can see. As an admin, you should strike the aspersion you cast about NRP. 166.205.97.70 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The line I saw as an attack was "Wikipedia does not need you". In context, it is easy to read as statement of hostility and a request that I remove myself, but ImaginesTigers has proposed a good-faith intepretation of that line. Per WP:AGF I am willing to assume that NinjaRobotPirate had only that interpretation in mind, and nothing more. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a non-admin comment: Much of Wikipedia's maths content is a mess, vast swathes of it written in such a way that it's only comprehensible to someone who already has a detailed knowledge of what the article is trying to say (and who therefore doesn't need to read it). But instead of improving it, the editors who are best placed to do so are here arguing about whether the argument about whether the reassessment of the article's original assessment is being carried out in a collegiate manner. I find the situation very sad, particularly as I have a lot of respect for many of those involved. I'd urge everyone to calm down and find a way to go back to editing. Elemimele (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm here because David Eppstein and others wrote an essay for the Notices of the American Mathematical Society to get more people involved in writing math on Wikipedia [https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20419]. I saw lots of tags on Matrix (mathematics) and figured I could handle some of them. Then I poked around to see who else was working on it, was pleasantly surprised to find a name I recognized, and then discovered that there is apparently a huge argument about how to handle the tiny green stickers that I never noticed before. I'm seeing a lot of "my way or the highway" attitude from Z1720, and maybe David Eppstein has been prickly about it. There seems to be bad blood of some kind built up for a while. Honestly, nobody is selling the virtue of the "good article" process. If I did become an active writer instead of a footnote-inserter, I can't imagine that I'd bother with "GA" anything. It seems to be a tiny pond full of toxic mess that brings out the worst in people. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::To be fair, my biggest complaint about the actual GA process is only that it is very slow (articles sit for months in the queue before being reviewed). This dispute is about the GAR process, one more step removed from article content, and a step that unless something has gone wrong should only happen years after the initial GA process. So if you just want to work on content and stay away from process, that's a great way to go; it should be the content that is king here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello IP, I would like to note that I think what you are reading here is a very unrepresentative sample of the general attitude at the GA processes. GA for me has provided me with amazing reviewers who have significantly improved my writing. In my 25 nominations and 64 reviews, I have never interacted with anything but purely productive collaboration efforts that have been beneficial for all parties involved. It pains me that this is the first interaction you have had with GA processes, but it is what it is. IAWW (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

A couple years ago I made a very minor edit to Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem (which was, and remains, a 'good article'), adding a 'clarification needed' tag to a poorly-phrased sentence, adding a 'citation needed' tag since the then-current ref was unrelated, and removing an incorrect wikilink. I also added some comments to the talk page highlighting what I saw as some larger problems with the page. David Eppstein reverted my edit, saying

: Undo disingenuous removal of source and tagging as "citation needed". The source was right there. Why you not read it, instead of removing it and then professing confusion at its absence? That is not a helpful way to proceed.

On the talk page, he said

: The given ref [...] is not unrelated. Did you even try to look it up, or are you just misjudging it by its title?

and

: We are not going to get very far if you insist on sentence-by-sentence responses to your diatribes,*** to which you respond with even-longer diatribes, and then infer from my refusal to engage that I must agree with everything I did not explicitly refute. That is not a reasonable way of engaging in discussion. [...] I am tempted to leave it at that, and stop engaging with you altogether, as not worth the waste of my time when you are obviously more interested in arguing than in improving our articles. But on the off-chance that you can behave better, here's one last attempt at a partial response: [...].

(*** this as a characterization of me pointing out for the record that half of the issues I raised were just ignored!)

This good article still has a paragraph (the second one in the 'Related results') with four errors: one technically incorrect statement, two incorrect attributions, one incorrect characterization. (He was willing to fix one small but crucial technical error, with a friendly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandrov%27s_uniqueness_theorem&diff=1072913473&oldid=1072890969 'whatever.']) The opening sentence of the paragraph is phrased in a very nonstandard way – directly analogous to saying "A polygon whose angle sum is 180..." instead of "A triangle...". The page also defines a mathematical term in a way which, so far as I can tell, is not attested to in any available source. There are multiple textbooks which define it in a different way, but DE made it clear that he doesn't approve of these definitions. (His preferred source is a book review, where he over-interprets a hand-wavy sentence "A is essentially just B" as "A is defined by B".) As a completely separate matter, this term is incorrectly wikilinked, with the linked page being about the same word but in a different context. And perhaps less importantly, the title of the 'good article' is also dubious, since it focuses on an arbitrary half of the content. (Something like "Alexandrov's existence and uniqueness theorem" or "Alexandrov's theorem (convex surfaces)" would be more accurate.)

This obviously isn't the place to litigate these specific concerns; the reason I list them here is to indicate that they are legible concerns, legitimate to discuss on the talk page, and worth doing so. But in this and other interactions with DE, my obviously good-faith attempts to improve wiki (or so it seems to me) are dismissively treated as "disingenuous" rabble-rousing. Nowadays I consciously try to avoid editing pages where DE is a major contributor. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Gumshoe2 Not to get too into the content dispute, but the common name for the theorem does appear to be the ""Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem". Yes, that doesn't cover everything, but it's very common for something's common name to be less than ideal. Your proposed suggestion of ""Alexandrov's existence and uniqueness theorem", however much you may feel it it better, has not yet been used by the outside world. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C2&q=%22Alexandrov%27s+existence+and+uniqueness+theorem%22&btnG=], as opposed to the current title, which long pre-dates Wikipedia[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C2&q=%22Alexandrov%27s+uniqueness+theorem%22&btnG=]. Again, not to get into the content disputes here, but I feel as if you're going to accuse somebody of misrepresenting sources and not following literature, you shouldn't simultaneously push for a name not used in... anybody other than yourself, afaict? Again, I know you feel it's a better title - but we can't just arbitrarily change something's name because we don't like the one in use, we have to use the one in use. Sorry, I know I'm a lowly maths undergrad here and so that's about all I can offer to the conversation, but I am going to say that anybody claiming an article can't be good because it doesn't use their pet name for something is... well it's not a great start. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am entirely open to a conversation about the title at the wiki talk page. For now, I'll just note that even DE's preferred source for the page, Connelly's book review, says

::: This is Alexandrov's existence theorem.

::after describing half of the main theorem of the page. There's no dispute that "Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem" is a good label for the other half. Perhaps any further discussion about this should go to the talk page.

::More importantly, I think you're strongly misreading my prior comment if you think I said the article "can't be good" because it's not called by my "pet name" (?). It was just one of two casual suggestions for a title, and what's more, I think the article is good! Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, and Conneley's book review is one of the handful of sources that uses the phrase "Alexandrov's existence theorem". Uniqueness is used far more often - over 10 pages of results on Google books[https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22Alexandrov%27s+uniqueness+theorem%22], as opposed to the four results on Google books for existence [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alexandrov%27s+existence+theorem%22&sca_esv=bf58db3f14c3f703&udm=36&ei=2jkdaN_vBrvz0PEP9fKwqQc&ved=0ahUKEwjfxIGg_5SNAxW7OTQIHXU5LHUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Alexandrov%27s+existence+theorem%22&gs_lp=EhBnd3Mtd2l6LW1vZGVsZXNzIiAiQWxleGFuZHJvdidzIGV4aXN0ZW5jZSB0aGVvcmVtIjIIEAAYgAQYogQyBRAAGO8FMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRIqBRQ7gFYxhJwAXgAkAEAmAGrAaABzwKqAQMwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgOgAt4CwgILEAAYgAQYsAMYogTCAggQABiwAxjvBcICBRAhGKABwgIFECEYqwKYAwCIBgGQBgSSBwMxLjKgB6kJsgcDMC4yuAfZAg&sclient=gws-wiz-modeless]. Again, I know it may not be the best name, but per WP:COMMONNAME it's really the only one we can use. And I'm sorry if I misread your comment; I interpreted the apostrophes about the phrase "good article" as scare quotes, which I believed was implication that you thought the article wasn't deserving of that title; I apologize for the misunderstanding.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No problem, I can see the source of confusion. I'd be happy to continue any discussion about the title at the talk page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd be happy to continue it there as well. I don't actually have strong opinions about the name of the article, but we have to name it something and preferably something snappy and well-used enough to be a good name. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:User:David Eppstein - I haven't been involved in the controversy about Good Article Reassessment, but I can see right here that you are digging yourself in a hole by demanding mathematical rigor. You wrote: {{tq|So if you are going to make accusations here, on ANI, about my attitude and my behavior, that I believe to be contradictory to my actual beliefs, I think I am in the right to demand proof. That is an actual demand. Proof or retraction, please.}} No. You wrote: {{tq|Please point to a single place anywhere in the current discussion where I have "lost my cool". Once. I am not going to acknowledge doing something that I have not done. Evidence, please, or retract your claim.}} No. You have the right to demand proof of a mathematical statement by another mathematician. You don't have the right to demand proof from the Wikipedia community. Even if you are right about the previous controversies about Good Article Reassessment, you are wrong in how you are right. See Being Right Isn't Enough. If the community says that you need to change your behavior, you should change your behavior even if logic is on your side. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's not unreasonable to ask for proof for accusations against you. Imagine if a court of law worked this way: "we don't care that there is no proof you did anything, you shall go to prison because a lot of people don't like you". IAWW (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia is not a court of law. You have a right to ask for proof in a court of law, although the burden of proof is not the same as what a mathematician can demand for a proof of a theorem. You have a right to ask for proof in Wikipedia. You do not have a right to demand that a claim be retracted if not proved. Being right may be enough in a oourt of law. The principle that Being Right Isn't Enough was stated by the ArbCom in banning an editor who was right on the merits but engaged in personal attacks. It is reasonable to ask for proof in Wikipedia, but it isn't reasonable to tell other editors to provide the proof or withdraw their claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on any processes related to Good/Featured status (GAN, GAR, FAC, FAR, etc). This ANI discussion itself seems to be all the proof needed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly support a 12-month topic ban from all content reassessment per my proposal above. Less strong support for a broader ban from all assessment processes, but—per the above post from Gumshoe2—there are conduct issues actively driving editors away from areas that desperately need them. I hoped for an ounce of contrition or self-awareness regarding the personal attacks. If the conduct continues beyond this, I'll support a desysop. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Will formally support a 12-month TBAN from featured content processes, including GAR, but I oppose a desysop. “Recall” is a word that shouldn’t be tossed around carelessly, and for good reason. ^EF⁵ 22:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: Just to clarify: I meant "If the conduct continues beyond the outcome of this thread", I will support desysoping. I would not support desysop as part of this current thread. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• If DE was instead told "under no circumstances are you allowed to comment on other editors' motivations, atate of mind, level of knowledge, etc.", and he followed that, would that solve the problem? If so, we should do that first. If there are other significant problems, then the topic ban makes sense. I hate ANI's way of attracting people to a thread to say "I don't like him either", but ... David, this is a lot of people who have problems with your approach to other editors. This is a collaborative endeavor. I think some self-reflection on that would go a long way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Wouldn't that be a defacto desysop? It would prevent admin action in dealing with COI, CIR, NOTHERE, etc. 166.205.97.70 (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The problem is, I'm just a lowly normal human, not a lawyer. OK, I didn't use 3 paragraphs to come up with an airtight wording, I was just trying to get a point across. I meant more like "...if you're in a content dispute with them". Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I have also failed to become a super human lawyer, and I probably should have been more straightforward with something like: Don't we expect an admin to be capable in the areas of these suggested restrictions? 166.205.97.70 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Theoretically we could require the conduct Floque recommends exclusively for cases where David is already WP:INVOLVED, so that there was a carve out to comment on shortcomings in the behaviour of another editor made consequent to an administrative action. But there are some issues with that. First, every element of the proposed restriction is already best practice captured in multiple policies, and any editor of David's experience, and especially someone with the bit, should be adhering to them as a simple matter of practice already. Second, it seems from some of the commentary about David's approach to GAR that these restrictions may not subdue all of the problematic approach to that area in particular, so there may be objections to it replacing this proposal rather than being a separately considered solution. Personally, I tend to agree that civility issues of this sort are global concerns and addressing such issues should at least be the priority. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Do civility restrictions ever work? To my knowledge, attempting to enforce them always turns into a slogging debate about the technicalities of "well it wasn't uncivil it was honest" or "that wasn't a comment on the editor's state of mind it was a comment about their behavior". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The comment: {{tq|"I'm sure, per WP:AGF, that the timing of this has nothing to do with WP:POINT, WP:HOUND, and the fact that we have been having a somewhat heated discussion on WT:GAR, but you must realize that as an article on my watchlist and that I significantly contributed to the Good Article nomination of, I will contribute to cleaning up at least some of the uncited statements, the ones that really do need cleaning up."}} along with the insistence that it was said in good faith seem to indicate that civility restrictions would not work. I believe almost anyone would read that as extremely sarcastic. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I would support a warning if I thought that Eppstein had the least bit of contrition or any recognition that this complaint or related complaints have merit. He seems to be in deny, dissemble, and denigrate mode. If he would simply take a deep breath and a step back and acknowledge that he can tone it town a tad bit, he would likely not face any topic ban or civility restriction. However he doubles down instead. Take it from me, I have been there and done that. Andre🚐 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I can certainly tone it down a tad bit. The comment immediately above yours, that "almost anyone would read that as extremely sarcastic", makes it clear to me that my intent is not being well conveyed by my writing. Whether intended or no, it has come across as an attack, and I regret having made any editor think they were being attacked. That is something I can work to address. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::These processes, such as GAR are just ways trick people into volunteering even more of their time to work on articles. More idealistically, they exist to articulate collaboration in order to improve articles. It isn't about badge yes/no. What matters is the process that sublimates editors' desire to engage other editors to collaborate on something a little more specific and in-depth. And it's as if you're not getting it, i.e., not getting what it's for, and are making this process unpleasant, and as a consequence the people are not engaging in this process when they otherwise would causing the articles not to be improved when they could. —Alalch E. 03:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{u|David Eppstein}}, I find it difficult to believe that you have no idea that your comments have "made any editor think they were being attacked". At the John von Neumann GAR, I specifically called our your "anti-intellectual" comment with a ping and asked you to retract it, and you did not even deign to reply. Later in the discussion, you went on to complain that other editors were being rude to you, and when I called you out on having the time to write that while still not retracting your nasty comment, you again ignored my concerns, disregarding admin conduct expectations entirely. It's clear that you do not care about treating others with even half as much respect as the complete deference you expect others to give you. And, sorry - the most you can offer is to "tone it down a tad bit"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't really consider this response sufficient. I guess I support seeing how a topic ban goes. I'm always puzzled how things get to this point, where gobs of people tell an obviously intelligent and productive person who cares about the encyclopedia that there's a problem with their editing, and the person says "meh". It happens a lot around here, and basically never in my day to day real life. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I've seen gobs of people tell obviously intelligent and productive people that there's a problem with their actions and those people proceed anyway at public meetings. Sometimes I even agree with the ones proceeding over objections. What I don't see is this happening in professional or friend settings (or if it does it means the person being told soon leaves that work place or friend group). I don't know who is in David's trusted group of editors here, but I would hope they would step-in to help him calibrate where he has a point (I agreed with him substantively on some matters in January which does seem to have produced a change in behavior closer to what he asked for) and where he needs to take a step back to rethink. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, it's been a long time since David Eppstein's "extreme anti-intellectual" PA, and in that time there has been no hint of anything as little as even a slight shift in attitude. It is not even their incivility, they are very happy to see it in others. What stuck out the most to me is Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 33#Aggressive/adversarial reassessment campaigns, where there was ananother editor made a openly blatant PA against Z1720 ("I assume it makes Z1720 feel powerful to make all the little editors dance to their will"), and David Eppstein's response was "Despite all the pushback here, I think Ace has a point". In this very AN/I thread, the response to the many issues raised, including outside of GAR, has been to claim it's everyone else who is wrong ("other editors here should be sanctionable", see also "Perhaps now that we're here we can discuss the behavior of Z1720 and the dogpiling that Thebiguglyalien is exhibiting instead"). There is a denial of perhaps at best a diversion away from the many civility issues raised ("It is evident in the very fact that my completely civil requests"). The only self-examination appears to be "I regret that my attempts at making GAR a more constructive process have made no progress towards that end", which is to say, Andre's comment of "I did not find his demeanor to be collegial or any tendency toward self-reflection" appears to be borne out in both claims by this very discussion alone. The wikilawyering about quite generally accepted citation conventions is also a poor response. While the civility issues raised are not restricted to content assessment, it has long caused issues there, and perhaps the limited outcome can prevent more extended action. CMD (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is not meant to undermine your overall position, CMD--based on what I am seeing, I may eventually !vote support myself, though not if I can't find time to review the cited discussions in more detail first--but I think it bears pointing out explicitly that the first comment you referenced there (the "all the little editors dancing to his will" bit) was not one of David's comments, but rather the contribution of another editor. I think most readers would deduce that from your framing, but you weren't so explicit about it that I don't think there's some chance it could be misread, especially in what promises to be a large block of !votes. And in fact, even aside from that issue, I think it's a weird place to focus: at most David defended some aspect of Ace's comment. That's hardly an endorsement of Ace's rhetoric in general, let alone that specific comment. Nor is it remotely comparable to saying something similar himself. The thing is, I see more than enough commentary here to raise concerns based on comments David has made. Again, I need to see a little more of the context to feel secure in !voting for a particular sanction, but I do see the issues. But I think that observation is over-stretching and believe we should focus more on what David has expressly said, not speculation on what he meant by agreeing that someone else "had a point". SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thank you for letting me know, I have edited above to make it more explicit that this was about a reaction to another editor's incivility. I would agree it would not be a significant moment in isolation, but it occurred in the context of everything previous, when David Eppstein was already well-aware of the issues with civility. There is no need to speculate on meaning, the rest of the comment was further agreement. The problem is a general lack of any care for civility, and that response really crystalised the issue for me. If someone comes in with that sort of rhetoric, and someone replies what is essentially 'I agree', it is not accurate to say the 'I agree' was "hardly an endorsement". It is at the very least tacit endorsement, and that agreement was a comment that David Eppstein did expressly make. CMD (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, but just because he 'tacitly endorsed' Ace's position does not mean that he supported the particular verbiage that Ace chose to make it which understandably drove a lot of criticism. Just to be clear, I did review David's post in question, and the immediate discussion around it, before responding to your !vote. To be honest, I had mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the ABF in implying that another user tactically chose to nominate the article around the holidays to minimize involvement is pretty telling; that is not only a non-charitable, WP:aspersions-adjacent way to frame the situation that should never be voiced without incredibly strong supporting evidence--it is also just a dubious and strange take, if you ask me. The cost-benefit of making that kind of claim based on speculation alone is never going to be good enough to justify the heat it will bring to the immediate discussion and the longterm animosity it can engender. On the other hand, much of the rest of that post is perfectly on point and reasonable, and most of it converges on a facially cogent argument that perhaps the process should not be so rushed.{{pb}}So yes, suboptimal in some of the subtext, but certainly nothing like blanket endorsement of Ace's clearly over-the-line discussion style in that one instance. I understand that you are saying it is a part of a pattern, but I still think there are better points to focus on, when we are discussing David's behaviour in the light of potentially serious sanctions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Actually, I'm even going to go further and strike part of my commentary there, because reviewing that post again, I'm not even confident David did mean to imply that the timing was intentional, so much as inconsiderate. On the whole I really don't find that post objectionable. I don't have enough experience with GAR to know if it is well-advised or wrong-headed, but in form it is not particularly incivil or problematic. Again, not to beat the dead horse, but that doesn't reflect my overall opinion David's conduct as discussed above, just the reasonableness of adding that particular post to the stack of accusations against him. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Sure, I can see your interpretation, I just hope I have conveyed it is part of a pattern. I encourage others to focus on the direct statements already linked by others, especially those that occurred before my example which contextualise it. I was noting a so far unmentioned incident that had previously struck out to me. (For what it's worth speaking of patterns, I didn't read the holiday thing as ABF, I read it as more a motte and bailey/slippery slope taking of an extreme example and applying that to the general principle. See the current debate about citations (including above) where responding to the question about sourcing at the end of paragraphs, David Eppstein raised out-of-paragraph mathematical notation (and is at WT:GAN also raising bulleted lists), rather than address the actual question of sourcing at the end of paragraphs. So in that reading, the holiday thing is more a 'what about this very specific and clearly unusual example'; dubious and strange maybe, but it is not a specific aspersion against Z1720.) CMD (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. My initial reading was not accurate and when I re-read it immediately after posting, that was obvious. I also now understand your position better. But lacking familiarity with the discussions, I don't feel qualified to comment further at this point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. With sadness, the evidence compels me to support this.—Alalch E. 02:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not confident that we have the full picture here and that dispute resolution at levels below sanctions has been fully attempted. Jahaza (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What detail do you feel is missing from the picture? Both parties have had the opportunity to comment here and have done so. Dispute resolution is largely for content disputes, not repeated disruption at consensus-building discussion boards. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Without specific knowledge of what's going on at GAR, which sounds like kind of a shithouse, I cannot say what the situation is there. But I would be strongly opposed to David getting sanctioned based on anything that he did at this specific AN/I thread. I mean, you've gotta be kidding me -- what do you want from the man -- getting yelled at by like five people at the same time, and he's not allowed to ask them for proof or disagree with it? jp×g🗯️ 04:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|JPxG}} I gave a whole spiel at the beginning about how it's not a shithouse until this all happened. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Also for JPxG, did you read ImaginesTigers' post, which provides diffs of DE's aggressive behavior across several discussions that aren't this ANI? Or are you suggesting that everyone above commenting about DE's long history of aggressive behavior is somehow referring solely to this ANI when they say that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The meaning of the sentences I wrote is straightforwardly contained in their words. They are not meant to suggest the opposite of what they say. They are not meant to convey some other, different, and false thing. jp×g🗯️ 18:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Okay, then where do you see people trying to sanction DE for what he did at this specific ANI thread, and not for a larger pattern of behavior ongoing for years? I don't see that reflected in the comments here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :GAR is really not a shithouse, in my experience. It’s usually calm and leads to undramatic reassessment or great article improvement. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support It's about time DE saw some consequences for his complete disregard of admin conduct expectations. Since the best he can offer is to "tone it down a tad", removing him from GAR/FAR will help make those areas more civil and workable for everyone else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Clarification - I support a 12-month TBAN from GAR/FAR, but not from GAN/FAC. I don't think there's a reason for preventing DE from putting his own content forward for review. It's GAR (and to a lesser degree FAR) that appears to be the problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :To be fair, the "tone it down" verbiage comes straight from another editor’s comment lamenting that DE won’t accept that he needs to "tone it down". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, but I think that editor was doing their best to be conciliatory, whereas I think DE's response was not, considering the claim that he has no idea anyone could possibly have felt attacked by him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: My experience with David, and takeaway from what I've read of the above conversations, is that while he is frequently blunt, most of his interactions do not rise to an unacceptable level. I am willing to take his recognition that some of his comments have come off as attacks and vow to do better going forward at face value, especially because this is, to my reading, the first time that he is clearly hearing from the community that his interaction style can be overly aggressive. I would like to see an acknowledgment that the specific personal attacks cited by ImaginesTigers are unacceptable and a retraction/apology for them, but I would like to give him a chance to do better before jumping to a topic ban. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Just a few follow-up comments, Eddie. David has been warned. PMC (as an administrator) warned him at WT:GAC. When Nikkimaria removed an edit he made for being a clear personal attack, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_review%2FEmmy_Noether%2Farchive1&diff=1254973750&oldid=1254567868 he reverted her]. Yesterday, he avoided my repeated requests for a bit of remorse and instead argued over what conduct was inappropriate "in this discussion" and arguing about citation rules further up. I've re-counted while writing this: David now has to apologise for at least 9 personal attacks. This doesn't include him calling someone's clearly good-faith edit "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandrov%27s_uniqueness_theorem&diff=prev&oldid=1072889536 disingenuous]". He's absolutely been warned. David's experience means he knows forgiveness is offered quite freely if long-standing editors just offer a mea culpa. That hasn't happened. This thread's a tangled mess of people providing clear evidence of poor conduct. For me, this would be a massive hands-up moment (and I've been there; we all have). And I'd have reached that stage well before sanctions were proposed.
• : David's history of excellent contributions resulted in my proposing a temporary topic ban instead of a SO indef. As much as David matters to the project, so does the trust of 10 others. They are not less valuable than him. Two editors said they avoid any area he touches—that's not just a loss of trust, it's a loss of contribution. Any apology beyond this point, after so many repeated refusals, can only evidence a desire to avoid a sanction. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::We will have to disagree on that. This discussion has only been open for what, two days? Reflection can take some time, especially when valid grievances (such as those that you and PMC raise) seem to be mixed in with comments that are not entirely accurate/helpful. I don’t think David has clearly been given that chance yet. I can see where you’re coming from, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Emmy_Noether/archive1&diff=next&oldid=1254973750 This] was in November, not two days ago. There's no grievance that makes calling people thoughtless or selfish or disingenuous permissible, or reinstating it when you're told its a PA. David has been very clearly given the choice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1289475281 and responded] that he regrets that others have misunderstood him and he won't participate in future GARs. (This is for calling people selfish and thoughtless.) It's effectively a self-imposed TBAN to avoid acknowledging that calling people these things is unacceptable. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::To be pedantic, he said he wouldn't participate in discussions on GAR, not GARs themselves. I agree that he should not have restored that, and that he should have responded to PMC's comment on the GAR, but I think this could be the first time that broader concerns with David's conduct are being presented to him, and an immediately defensive reaction is not incomprehensible to me. Regardless of what should have been done in the past, I would still now like to give him more than sub-48hrs to reflect/respond on this before jumping to a TBan. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::: That's fair. My bad for misreading that. I do still think it's a baby and bathwater response. FWIW, if David offers a sincere apology to the users he attacked, I'd support a reduction to 6 months. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Tentative oppose. David, I think all that's needed is that you separate your arguments in favor of changing the GAR process from your reactions to individual GARs. I don't see any reason why you can't start or contribute to threads on WT:GAN about the GAR process, and propose changes based on how you think the process should work. But right now it doesn't work the way you would like, and I think you should not complain about other editor's behaviour when they follow the existing process. If you agree that's reasonable then I don't think any sanction is necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support GAR should not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Reasonable people can disagree during discussions, but this seems to veer far outside of a normal disagreement and into battleground behavior. The review is an attempt at consensus gaining. He doesn't have to like it but he shouldn't be allowed to disrupt discussions because he doesn't like where they're going. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral but Will support sanctions if I see the same kind of behaviour brought here again any time soon - I see the diffs and I get the point about DE’s behaviour. I also get that DE is an experienced editor so it’s hardly like they don’t know what the standard of behaviour is. Ultimately, though, I think DE is capable of bringing the temperature down and should do that in any event. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support If several people including a sitting arb say there's a problem, I trust that there's a problem. David seems to not believe that there is a problem in this ANI thread and frankly seems pretty cavalier about the whole situation, so, here we are. Loki (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• As an arb, I want my conduct to be held to a higher standard, but I don't want my opinion or observations to be valued more than others. Z1720 (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• : You may not want this, but it is human nature. Several editors in this thread have said they don't see any conduct issues with DE despite evidence to the contrary. That's very straightforwardly because DE is a long-term editor who has built up good faith and people want to give a second chance beyond where it's warranted. By the same token, people will pay more attention if an editor—possessing elected, privileged powers specifically to read, process, and action complex issues—says there is a conduct issue. It does not remove the need for evidence, but it will often mean people look a little more closely at what's been presented. I certainly wouldn't have spent the time reviewing and responding to this if not for you and one other editor whose views I respect. That, and the sheer volume of complainants. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::When I was a sitting arb, having that thrown at me because of some mild disagreement about something was always a bit much. But also the deference some editors would want to give me, for no real reason, was also a bit much. The sitting arb who is saying there's a problem is incredibly deeply INVOLVED and thus if anything we should be subjecting it to extra scrutiny rather than extra deference; and indeed Z1720 makes this same point - which I applaud and appreciate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Agree on the latter point. Having minimal experience with ArbCom, didn't know the former bit. Unfortunate but, again, human nature... as we know, it isn't always a good thing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose partially on the same grounds as Mike Christie - if DE agrees to separate commentary on GAR as a process from individual GARs, and partially as per Eddie891, if DE apologizes and brings the temperature down. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Question/comment: {{u|David Eppstein}}, I've personally gone back and forth on this proposal. I've now read near the entirety of the discussions that TBUA linked to in their opening post, and honestly I don't see a whole lot that I would classify as clearly disruptive, let alone expressly uncivil in your conduct. On the other hand, collateral information provided by other users does concern me, particularly those shared by Z1720, which do appear to show a fair bit of ABF and a confrontational style that walks right up to the edge of aspersions at the very least. We expect our admins to provide an example of cool-headedness, and I believe other editors here have at least established a pattern here of needlessly personalizing disputes. Collectively it does not rise to the level of a sanction or seriously considering your fitness for the bit, imo, but if you don't make at least some adjustment to your discussion style when you feel vexed, I believe that could change as far as the community is concerned. {{pb}}Concerning this proposal, and the concerns which raised it, however, here's an observation that I don't see has been very directly addressed above. You have concerns about the GAR process, clearly. So why don't you (and those who support your view, because we do see some of them in evidence here), make a concrete WP:PROPOSAL (or set of proposals) to implement the changes you think are appropriate for the process? A whole lot of energy is being wasted on recriminations and passive aggressive commentary, occasionally spilling out into outright broadsides. And as others have noted, I don't entirely believe you are incapable of seeing where some of these comments could be perceived as insulting or discouraging. And if you do, that's a serious competence issue in it's own right. So my advice is that, if you manage to avoid a TBAN here and don't voluntarily walk away from the GAR area for a bit, you need to put your notions of how this process should work to the community. And if you fail to gain consensus for the reformation of the process that you think is appropriate, you need to just let it go and live with the current approach and requirements. {{pb}}Because the character attacks, subtle and gross, and the vaguely battleground mentality are clearly not getting you anywhere, but are generating a whole lot of sour feelings. There are places in the involved discussions where you speak of feeling that your efforts have been dismissed in a "hurtful" fashion. I believe those sentiments are sincere. But I do think you've been oversensitive on at least some of those occasions to comments that were not meant to insult you, and that you've allowed yourself to use that situation as justification to indulge an impulse to give them back some of their own. But you're an experienced contributor and an admin, and you should know better. If you think you should be due a greater level of courtesy and consideration in terms of timelines and prerequisites for fixing GA's before the initiation of a GAR, attempt to codify such rules. But in my opinion you need to stop approaching this situation as a lowkey guerilla war of needlessly combative rhetoric. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :SnowRise, with respect, there have already been multiple changes at GAR to bring things more in line with DE's preferences. There is now an expectation that editors will leave talk page posts and wait for a response (even though anecdotally, these posts rarely prompt any improvement). Within the past few months, the minimum time for a GAR to be open was hiked from one week to thirty days, just in case. Still he pushes for more - this recent kerfuffle started because he is upset that users do not post maintenance tags and then wait, before posting to the talk page and waiting, before opening a GAR and waiting some more. How much is a community process intended to bend to one editor's preferences? How much more make-work can we expect an editor to have to do before opening a GAR? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I was involved in the substantial January GAR discussion. At that discussion I felt both DE and Z1720 had some good points (and also that they had points where they agreed with each other). In this more recent discussion I'm having a harder time finding places to agree with DE and I agree with PMC that the request about maintenance tags is not one that's going to ultimately help improve the GAR and thus our articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Unfortunately, I don't think I am very well qualified to answer those questions, as my experience of GA qualification begins and ends with GAN (and little enough of that, if I am honest). But what I am observing is that these discussions have been long on argumentation and slim on efforts to condense it into a proper consensus through available process. It seems to me that an RfC or two could provide the structure necessary to create a well-established consensus for or against the various suggestions to adjust the process. They would also bring in insight from those who are less permanent fixtures in the process--which of course can be both a good and a bad thing simultaneously, but at the very least would reassure David that the results were not a consequence of the perspectives of the same small subset of editors he has been struggling against on these issues. Or, if he was not reassured, he would at least have a harder time objecting to any potential results he did not favour, after the fact.{{pb}} Regardless, from my look in on this cluster of disputes through at least the discussions that have been linked here, it seems to me that (as is common on this project, let's be clear) unorganized argumentation has been allowed to drag on well past the point when a more structured process could have created a more binding consensus that could have spared time, volunteer exhaustion, and potentially some of the hard feelings. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tqq|slim on efforts to condense it into a proper consensus through available process}} feels like a real misunderstanding of the discussions because an available process was used. Consensus can be achieved through two ways: editing and discussion according to policy. This is obviously using discussion and talk page discussion is one consensus building techniques our policy provides. Indeed this is how consensus for changes in January were reached, no RFC required. We also see on this very page that an RFC need not be required to achieve consensus given that consensus for sanctions rarely go to an RFC, but doesn't make any consensus reached less of one or having used less of a process. The fact that David is having a harder time getting people to agree with him now than in January suggests to me not a problem with a small subsets of editors but with the quality of what he's proposing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Well, of course consensus can result from more informal discussions. My point is that a more rigorous process involving both a formal WP:PROPOSAL and a little extra community involvement would almost certainly have resolved this matter more expeditiously and cleanly, with reduced bloat from repetitive arguments, less tension, and less doubt as to the result, as a consequence of a formal close from an uninvolved party. There's what's permissible and then there's best practice. I really think the parties to this cluster of disputes would have done themselves a big favour if they had been a little more pro forma on this one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Or rather, I'm not even saying that the parties collectively definitely should have RfC'd. My thoughts were largely directed towards David in the form of "If you really can't stand the existing standards, you should shoot your shot at a clear proposal for something different. It would get you farther than going nine rounds with every individual who is operating within the existing rules, but who you feel isn't operating in the spirit of the process." SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::David was concerned about not having enough time to fix articles and otherwise seeing articles delisted without a good process. So in January a whole bunch of process improvements were made and Z1720 agreed to make some changes in his behavior. Why in the world would David have wanted to RfC that? Things moved in the direction he wanted across the board and frankly I'm glad the discussion was had because I took had been uncomfortable with how things had been playing out. Then the May discussions that led here started in an attempt to get more participation in order to avoid delisting them. That is the thing David wants - fewer GAs delisted & more of them improved (it's actually also the thing Z1720 wants but the disagreement comes in the how that's achieved, what's the right level of improvement, and how long that should take). Now in that May discussion there wasn't an appetite for the suggestion David brought - more maintenance tags - so maybe he could have started an RFC there instead of bludgeoning the discussion and insulting Z1720 at discussion about a specific GAR. But it feels like your advice would not have, for nearly the entire length of this conflict, actually achieved the progress he wanted or progress he achieved any better than what did play out while simultaneously misattributing facts and motives to others who participated in the process with him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Right. Or at least there's some truth to that characterization of David's approach. Having read through all the linked discussions, I'm not of the opinion that David's conduct was quite so uniformly egregious as some other parties here, engaged in the same contest of wills, have implied. But to be certain, there were issues with ABF, and there have been comments cited here (some of them quite stale though) that definitely cross the line on what we want to see from an experienced user (let alone an admin) in terms of speculating about another party's motives and qualities rather than addressing their arguments. But that's all the more reason why one side or the other should have, on the basis of both principle and pragmatism, attempted either a formal WP:PROPOSAL, RfC or other formal DR process, rather than just engaging in increasingly repetitive and hostile free-for-all argumentation.{{pb}} I'm not recommending such a process because it would confer some sort of benefit to David in those discussions (as you said, he derived some degree of success with his desired goals, though he is now dealing with the downside), but because it is the smart approach under policy and a mutualistic solution that almost certainly would have resolved matters more cleanly, easily, and efficiently than the round-and-round discussions that did take place and which accomplished very little by way of stable resolution of the issues, but rather entrenched positions further, gave David some small temporary victories which he was not satisfied with in the longterm, and ultimately brought us here. Honestly, I am confused as to why you would be surprised at or object to the recommendation of using one of our formal DR processes. This is the basic advice we consistently provide to users experienced and new, directing them towards these tools, which have been specifically developed to resolve intractable editorial disputes on policy and process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::The dispute was complex and ongoing but not intractable and your continuing to characterize it as such is unfair to the work others did to find consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Oh good grief--now you're implying that I'm denigrating the good faith efforts of the other editors here merely because I tried to tell David that if he felt so strongly about the issue, he should have used the actual process for a WP:proposal to change a guideline, or used another dispute resolution process, rather than going to the mat with each individual editor!? Your argument is absolutely absurd and I am quite done talking with you about this. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for the helpful advice. Somewhere in the mess above I have already stated my intention to walk away from GAR process discussions (or, as you put it, drop the stick) and accept that process as it is. That is still my intention. (Somewhere above someone else asked: why only this limited step rather than stepping away from GAR altogether, and the answer is: when GAR identifies problems with articles within my areas of interest, I want to improve those articles to remove those problems, rather than treating the existence of a GAR as something that prevents me from making article-space improvements.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: Multiple editors who Opposed, like Mike, have said you are failing to differentiate a process you don't like from the participants. (This is an assumption of good faith on their part.) I suggest that self-imposing a topic ban from any GAR process discussions while continuing to engage with the participants is a recipe for disaster. That said, this comment sounds more reasonable than the last time you expressed this, wherein you said calling people "selfish" and "anti-intellectual" was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1289475281 constructive criticism]. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's fair enough, but if your plan is to disengage from the discussions surrounding changes to the process (and I do think that is a reasonable and the smart move here), you're going to have to also be exceptionally conservative with (if not avoiding altogether) any commentary implying issues or grievances arising out the approach of other editors who do anything less than what is expressly required by policy or the relevant process descriptions as they stand. I don't think you can have your cake (continue to operate in the area of GAR without pursuing changes you want to see in the process through discussions on such) and eat it too (voice strong reservations on how others conduct themselves with regard to grey areas in the process) without running into the same conflicts again. And if you do avoid a TBAN and eventually find that you feel you must return to discussions about reforming the process, I really suggest that you handle it the smart way with a clear proposal that can be !voted up or down by participants, with any clear resulting consensus scrupulously respected. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Re avoiding commentary on process, avoiding grievance at self-imposed cleanup work, and avoiding reservations about others' conduct as part of responding to individual GARs: of course. That was part of what I meant by stepping away from process. I have no intent of any future return to this issue. If any future problems arise with the process, they can be some other editors' problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know if my comment counts for anything, but it seems to me that DE stepping away from the arguments about "Good Article Review" process would avoid the clash of personalities going on here. The "topic ban on any processes related to Good/Featured status" sounds like you're forbidding a mathematician from improving mathematics articles, which is both unproductive and unwarranted. If a math article is put up for "Good Article Review", is DE then forbidden from fixing the problems with it? Is he allowed to edit Matrix (mathematics) like I've been doing but forbidden to say anything in the "Good Article Review" discussion page? Is he banned from putting up any of his own work for "Good Article" or "Featured Article"? If someone else nominates a math article for "Featured" status, is DE banned from evaluating it? (I'm given to understand that "GAN, GAR, FAC, FAR" are all separate discussion areas. Nearly every complaint here has been about "GAR", with only one "FAR" being mentioned. And that was a discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Emmy_Noether/archive1] with lots of snappishness in all directions, and some other editors generally agreeing with DE, though being maybe less prickly about it.) How does preventing a knowledgeable math person from fixing problems with math articles, or getting recognition for their contributions, make the math content on Wikipedia better? 64.112.179.236 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• : This is the challenge with opposing after acknowledging you don't understand the site's policies. The ruling would determine which actions were allowed or disallowed. By my proposal, David would be allowed to improve content but not participate in discussions about reassessment for 12 months (6 if he were to apologise, which he has not); it would be down to him whether he improved content that needs improved.
• : You can say others were "less prickly"... but nobody called David "selfish", "thoughtless", "anti-intellectual" or "disingenuous". If that is prickly, I am able to say much more to other editors than I thought I could. Fortunately, I am not the pointy type. If others had said those things, I would propose they be sanctioned alongside him. Not all of them occurred within reassessment processes (e.g., the "disingenuous" comment was completely unprovoked dismissiveness). He has baselessly accused editors of hounding him. People have asked, or hinged their opposition on, an apology or retraction for these, and he has repeatedly ignored these requests. Editing Wikipedia and improving content is not a right. Wikipedia doesn't need any one contributor if they create a hostile environment. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: That'll be my last response to other participants on this thread. David, we've never interacted before and I doubt, given our areas, we ever will. Your unwillingness to show any remorse for the personal attacks is immensely disheartening from an editor of your stature. If a rope is extended to you here, please use it to free yourself from this instead of its other use. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUOxEwCuEgQ I leave you with this.] — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per 12 months is excessive, while acknowledging that David Eppstein should strive to do better in their interactions with editors, broadly construed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hope you don't mind I'm saying otherwise. But saying "topic ban on any processes related to Good/Featured status (GAN, GAR, FAC, FAR, etc)." leads to a personal proposal in my opinion, emerging some questions whether improving (but what if, somehow, not intended to GAN) is considered part of it, fix and improving before upcoming GAR from the collaborative invitation is part of it, and whether discussion after articles already in GA status is also part of it. The etc. is not something very clear to be understood. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe more diplomacy is needed when suffering those whose understanding of the topics is deemed lacking but this proposal is excessive. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose In the interest of improving the encyclopaedia and raising the quality of the articles. GAR has been a contentious area for many years. I hope that the recent reforms will ameliorate this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose this sanction, in agreement with most of the points made by editors opposing above. This doesn't mean I completely disagree with other stuff pointed out here, or that I don't understand the rationale of some of the supporters of such a barrier to DE's further activity here. I do hope this discussion on this noticeboard will help change DE's future behavior to everyone's satisfaction. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I've had minor disagreements with David Eppstein in the past, and it never escalated to any kind of heated discussion. There was a discussion more recently a few months back where it felt like he was expressing minor irritation but stood his ground all the same. We all have room to improve when the temperature gets raised. I agree with others that this dispute doesn't rise to the level of sanctions. Perhaps as a sign of good faith, DE should voluntarily take a step back from GAR (or other areas as needed) for a month on his own initiative. Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban on principle. I disagree with all the other editors who consider this no big deal. My yardstick for conduct is often "If a newcomer said the same things, how many times will they get indeffed". For DE's incivility, that's way too many. I dislike the idea of topic banning admins in general. If we do not trust them to handle themselves civil-ly during GAR, perhaps we should not trust them with the powers to indef others. Therefore I would rather WP:RECALL or similar than support a topic ban, that feels more in line with community expectations of WP:ADMINACCT. I prefer either over just doing nothing. (Full disclosure, I was made aware of this topic via off-wiki discussions; I came to this conclusion independently). Soni (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Genuine questions, does anybody opposing the tban believe a new user would get away with this level of incivility? And do we officially accept that established users can act more aggressively, or is this just a de facto thing?Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. People, if David wasn't an admin, this would be a slam-dunk forecast of WP:SNOW. The fact it isn't is concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I probably wasn't at my best during the John von Neumann GAR either, but it was unpleasant reading before I commented. As PMC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_von_Neumann/1#c-Premeditated_Chaos-20230925223300-Jacobolus-20230925223100 said at the time], {{tq|It's not bloody well off topic to expect an administrator to adhere to basic conduct standards}}. That was two years ago. Since the suggestions, advice and even warnings seem to have been water off a duck's back and/or blithely ignored, David Eppstein himself has limited our options. Also, as Boynamedsue asks, and per Soni, {{tq|does anybody opposing the tban believe a new user would get away with this level of incivility?}} Of course not. Just because as individuals some of us have been lucky enough not to have to deal with the bludgeoning and general battleground behavior does not mean it should be encouraged, which is what we're doing if we don't put a stop it. DE has been asked to, but has been unable or unwilling to do so; the community is now in the unfortunate position of having to do it for him. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :You've misunderstood my point, I was only asking a practical question. I've been an editor in good standing for over a decade and I make a lot of useful edits. Is it ok for me to start being a dick to people yet, or should I wait until I've made more contributions?Boynamedsue (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I was agreeing with you... Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I've not made a point to agree with. I'm just asking how much I need to contribute before I get a free pass to be unpleasant and insulting to other users. I enjoy being nasty and condescending, but avoid doing it here as it is nominally against the rules. I would be grateful if other users could give me some guidelines on when it would be ok for me to start.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from GAR. I'm less inclined to support a ban from GAN and FAC more broadly, but not enough to outright oppose one either. I am not seeing a real recognition of the fundamental issues that led us to ANI in the first place, and which go back for years. I am broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the other editors supporting a topic ban. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{nac}} Now blocked for 31 hours by User:Rsjaffe. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|2600:6C40:5900:CDC:FE33:612:AB6A:1564}} This IP Editor used profanity when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:6C40:5900:CDC:FE33:612:AB6A:1564&diff=prev&oldid=1289364276 replying] to a topic on their Talk page Pibx (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blissfully blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)}}

On 1 April, I submitted a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1183#IP_adding_%22brutally_beaten%22_again report] due to an IP editor continually making unsourced changes to articles, for example repeatedly adding "brutally beaten" (this looked like trolling). 2600:4040:5E5C:5500:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for a month but the disruption has resumed since the block expired.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artemic_Khalatov&diff=prev&oldid=1288337502][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlas_Chubar&diff=prev&oldid=1288337411][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C4%81nis_Rudzutaks&diff=prev&oldid=1288336485][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_People%27s_Army_Air_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1288584005] Would it be possible to impose another block on this range? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've reblocked the range.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Superior6296}}

Superior6296 has over 1,000 edits since 2022, but their quality leaves much to be desired. There have been several previous attempts to communicate with them, including 2 ANI threads around a year ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Plagiarism_of_flag_list_page], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#User_adding_hoax_flags_to_article]), the second of which culminated in a short partial block, but at no point has Superior6296 engaged with any of the criticisms or requests for communication.

Since then, they have continued in their pattern. As {{u|R Prazeres}} noted on their user talk page, they do not appear to have ever cited a single source in their 1,009 edit tenure. Most recently, they've added baseless, patently UNDUE content at Religion in Egypt, unreferenced statements at Languages of Rwanda, unattested native names at a range of articles (Special:Diff/1289345688, Special:Diff/1289345119), assertions of the presence of religious minorities without references at Sakhalin Oblast, and sometimes even adding large paragraphs of analysis without providing any sources Special:Diff/1284179275. Particularly given their focus on low-traffic pages with lots of demographic data, these edits have flown under the radar, but they are a massive disservice to the encyclopedia. At this point, given the numerous past efforts to contact them and get them to engage with community policies and guidelines, I think that we have reached the end of the road and need an indefinite communication is required block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Without getting into the meat of the actual issue, noting that Superior6296 has never edited any type of talk page, and has only gone outside of article space for 3.7% (37) of their edits. They need to demonstrate an ability, and more so a willingness, to communicate. The previous block clearly had no effect on their (non-existent) use of citations, or enthusiasm to discuss or acknowledge issues. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just looking through now, it doesn't look like they've even ever included a real edit summary! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've indefinitely blocked the user. As an aside, many of the user's recent edits are unsourced and yet have not been reverted. Because I felt my reverting them would make me WP:INVOLVED, I left them alone, but someone should review them and take appropriate action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've cleaned up their most recent and concerning additions, although I've left most of the flag gallery additions alone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For what it's worth, one of the main things this account did was creating and/or expanding "List of flags of [...]" or "Flag of [...]" articles, typically with large numbers of unsourced, WP:OR, or irrelevant flags, especially in sections about "historical" and "proposed" flags. (Note: the Santiago Ríos Undurraga account, possibly the same person, also contributed along very similar lines but became inactive shortly before Superior6296 was created.) I've removed some of this material before in Middle East and North Africa-related articles (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Yemenite_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1272262648], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Lebanese_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1251444711], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Libyan_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1251445883], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tunisian_flags&diff=prev&oldid=1210763155], all from Superior6296's edits), but I suspect this problem is now widely distributed. Any interested editors, with a bit of common sense and moderate historical knowledge, could probably clean up a lot of the unsourced and tangential clutter in those articles at some point. R Prazeres (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:584D:DE00:0:0:0:0/64

Judging by geolocate info, contributions such as these [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Lee_filmography&diff=prev&oldid=1287944206][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Lee_filmography&diff=prev&oldid=1263543743] editing in similar topics (pro wrestling, hong kong cinema) and making identical grammar errors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kung_Fu_Kid_(1994_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1288220454] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three_Kingdoms:_Resurrection_of_the_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=1263544597], this appears to be Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:59F4:7300:0:0:0:0/64 who is blocked for another month.

I doubt this is intentional block evasion, and their contributions have been mostly constructive since they began editing in this new range(though they've previously begun edit warring and engaging in personal attacks when they notice me cleaning up after them, which I doubt they have yet). With all that in mind, I'm not sure if a block on this new range would be warranted, but I want to report just in case it is. I initially brought this to AIV where I've previously reported this user, and was directed to bring it here by ScottishFinnishRadish(unsure if I need to tag them?). Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: If they're on the same /40, yeah, it's probably the same person. Blocked for block evasion. This is likely the same person who's been a pain in those topics for several years now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The user {{Userlinks|Etcnoel1}} keeps vandalizing/disruptive editing the page Assyrian rebellion and harasses other users with their alleged ethnic background or nationality (which is not even true regarding mine background) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289394204. Asked the user to use the talk page, but clearly refuses to do so https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&curid=60517284&diff=1289439959&oldid=1289438135 And now he/she continues to revert edits despite the fact that I added sources or corrected existing ones. He claims that ‘’A user is not obligated to message another user on their talk page because of a simple revision on a Wiki page.’’, but its not a simple revision. He reverts back any edits of other users without even using the talk page and then accuses me of vandalism. I also added a clear Turkish source yet he just deletes all my edits. Would appreciate it if a admin could at least warn this user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woxic1589 (talk • contribs)

• Both of you appear to be misusing the term "vandalism" to the detriment of civility. Both of these edit summaries are completely uncalled for, and they appear at the beginning of this edit war (Etcnoel, Woxic1589). You should both have immediately gone to the article talk page to discuss, rather than continue editing the page. I will say that Etcnoel1's most recent edit summary on that page, ...It’s clear that you are unaware of Wikipedia guidelines so I recommend that you read them. A user is not obligated to message another user on their talk page because of a simple revision on a Wiki page. is concerning in its misunderstanding of relevant behavioral norms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:So calling someone an ‘’Kurdish tiktok’’ user is normal? I didn’t see a answer on that part. Its not even because I’m not Kurdish, but its simply wrong to call anyone on their background. Another user called {{Userlinks|Termen28}} just reverted my edit again. Could be one user using multiple accounts here. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think you've misread my comment. And you continued to edit war, so now you can sit out a 24-hour block. Further edit warring on this or any other article will result in further sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I think this seems perfectly reasonable. Etcnoel1 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, the user is disruptively editing the Assyrian rebellion page and then tells me to stop editing and to rather take it to the User’s talk page.

:first of all, a simple edit shouldn’t be taken to the talk page. He’s practically asking me to stop removing his vandalism.

:the user vandalized in multiple ways, more specifically by trying to add the “Turkish-KURDISH” victory. Well first of all, Kurds didn’t do much, I’m not saying that just because there is no sources on it, but also because Kurds incited multiple rebellions at the time. it was the Turkish forces that defeated the Assyrians. Kurds may have been helping a little, but that does not make it a Kurdish victory all of a sudden. I’m confused, cause the user attempted to make it seem like Kurds did the most by saying so in his/her summary. The user also don’t understand the Infobox guidelines, the Infobox is a simple summary of the whole page, nowhere in the page are Kurds described as the victorious. Etcnoel1 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Etcnoel1, please immediately familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL. You are working in a contentious topic and in danger of a block. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Got it. Etcnoel1 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You didn’t got it as you and Termen28 still removed sourced content and content I corrected. You are calling the edit ‘’Turkish-Kurdish victory’’ vandalism? Based on what is that even vandalism? Do you even know the meaning of the word vandalism? Have opened a new talk page discussion on the same page now so you are free to respond there. Stop removing every single EDIT I make. Woxic1589 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::if you want your edits to stop being removed, then you should perhaps consider editing better? Your vandalism is clear to me, considering the page doesn’t state anywhere of a “Kurdish victory”, and you break the Infobox guidelines. Do you even know what the point of an Infobox is? Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again, you use the term ‘’vandalism’’ without even knowing the meaning of it. And who are you to tell other people to ‘’edit better’’? Do you even know what the point of a talkpage is? Clearly not because you still refuse to use it nor do you respect other editors and call them Kurdish TikTok trolls. Woxic1589 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::First of all, stop jumping back to the word vandalism. The question isn’t whether I know it or not, because I do, but if YOU know what vandalism is.

:::::::and how many times do I have to repeat this, a simple Wikipedia edit shouldn’t be discussed on a talk page? Since when was it obligated to discuss on a talk page before editing on Wikipedia? Show me that.

:::::::As I said, you vandalized on clear grounds by the reasons I mentioned. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, I’m leaving this here for the admins: ‘’ a simple Wikipedia edit shouldn’t be discussed on a talk page?’’. You didn’t just revert a ‘’simple edit’’ of mine, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289439959. You reverted back much more content than just a ‘’simple edit’’. And if two editors do not agree on it, its very usual and normal to use the talk page for that. But its clear that you are not willing to do so. You keep accusing other editors of ‘’vandalism’’ while literally doing it by yourself. Can a admin intervene now? Woxic1589 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, what you did is cause disruptive editing. Admins have already reviewed and determined that you should’ve been blocked for a few hours. I expect you to learn from those hours, I am again not in the wrong. I see that you’re desperately attempting to put me in the wrong but it won’t really work considering you vandalized and did excessive editing. You just kept editing and editing, removing anything out of your liking with random and sometimes invalid reasons. So unnecessarily done, you removed anything out of your liking and you attempted to do so in SECRET like I wouldn’t notice. Go and look back at your edits once again and see who’s in the wrong. Etcnoel1 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I’m just gonna wait for the admins to take action. Its clear you are not even able to understand the situation and continue playing as a victim here. I didn’t even remove content but added more now and corrected them per sources. But its clear that you are not willing to listen nor wanting to work together to improve these articles. Your disrespectful behavior against other editors should not be allowed like this. Especially not on a site like Wikipedia. Also you using a possible second account to revert back the exact same content before shows that its not me, but you being the disruptive editor. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Woxic1589, please don't end up blocked for personal attacks as well - accusing someone of being a sockpuppet isn't ok. If you have evidence of this, though, can you please post diffs? -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Sorry, I meant a possible sockpuppet In case the admins could check it out. He reverted back the almost exact same content I added at the same time, see: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289483735] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyrian_rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=1289451501]. He still kept doing it despite receiving a warning. Woxic1589 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thanks. That's not enough for me to justify a block, but I'll start an SPI request. -- asilvering (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Well thanks for your help Woxic1589 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Termen28. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Also, for this part ‘’Go and look back at your edits once again and see who’s in the wrong’’: if you actually, carefully read what I edited you would see that I added sources and corrected the existing ones. You are the one refusing to use a talk page to further discuss it. Can the admins please take action against this behavior? Woxic1589 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Woxic1589 You are so in the wrong here. You are POV warrior because you edit constantly because your type of people cant resist eating children. WPEditorsAreTooSubmissive (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Can the admins perma ban/block User:Etcnoel1? He’s literally making new accounts and attacks me for no good reason after his main account got blocked. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Checkusers will investigate but I suspect that these are not Etcnoel1, and are rather a troll who likes to harass random editors here. Regardless, if you see comments like this, report them and remove them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I will, just never saw something like this happening before. But I really do suspect it to be related to each other. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Unbelievable. You literally just said you weren't going to do this again! Blocked 24hr for personal attacks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Here from WP:AE. That unblock request doesn't give me much hope, @Rosguill. -- asilvering (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think at this point unless we see a sharp course correction from Etcnoel1, a community topic ban from Assyrian topics is advisable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::+1. -- asilvering (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I've upgraded the block to indefinite due to Etcnoel1 continuing to not get the point. Between the attitude issues, basic misunderstanding of vocabulary, and the repeated failures to engage with markup correctly, this is starting to look like a CIR situation. At any rate, a topic ban can be imposed as an unblock condition at this point, so I think that makes discussion here mostly moot unless someone disagrees with this approach. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Userlinks|220.137.188.187}} has been rewriting China's and Taiwan's status contrary to the consensus in basically all edits they've made so far and edit war with anyone who reverts those changes. Laura240406 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{Userlinks|220.141.223.191}} appears to have been the same user. @Laura240406, I think enough of these edits constitute vandalism that you could've reported this IP at WP:AIV instead; admins tend to respond more quickly there. Toadspike [Talk] 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Indef applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Itsallabout42}}

All of this user's edits are AI-generated. This is especially obvious from the fake sources: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_McKee&diff=prev&oldid=1281441735] (obvious), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monpura&diff=prev&oldid=1281439843] (broken DOIs in refs 9 and 14), and all the deadlinks in Robert Leitz. The long edit summaries are also clearly AI. I have checked every single one of their edits and reverted them all for similar issues (except for the Robert Leitz article, which I have AfD'd). Notably, about half of their edits were made after they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsallabout42#c-BalaM314-20250320113800-March_2025 warned] for LLM use by User:BalaM314. This user needs to be blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 19:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:They have now returned, presumably prompted by the AfD notice, but I do not think their edits have improved. Their comment at AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Leitz&diff=prev&oldid=1289539624] seems AI-generated. Their purported efforts to improve the article involves a lot of shifting stuff around for no apparent reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Leitz&diff=1289551461&oldid=1289539477]. They continue to reword things in a way that is both promotional and a sign of LLM use (though at least they have started linking to real websites, if not always reliable ones) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Leitz&diff=1289539148&oldid=1289500578]. They have stopped using edit summaries altogether, presumably because I flagged them above. Toadspike [Talk] 12:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's at least one fake source in La Vida Lena too (see Ref 8) in that it has a made-up ISBN and I cannot find any evidence the book exists. The IMDB link (not that one should be using IMDB anyway) goes to an Amazon Prime series starring Sissy Spacek and JK Simmons, so I'm guessing the LLM couldn't figure out a link there. The editor has not replied to any of the concerns whatsoever. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks both. Indef'd. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| result = {{ping|Neutralhomer}} This does not require admin attention, and you don't need to post the same thing at AN and AN/I. Please follow WP:DR. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

There is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#concerns_with_wides-pread_use_of_links_to_copyvio_material_in_references an ongoing discussion] on WP:MCQ regarding the use of a website as a reference and if that website violates COPYVIO. A consensus needs to be reached, hence the request for eyeballs. (I will be posting this on AN too for the same reason, admin eyeballs and not forum shopping) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Immediate action taken|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Please take immediate action [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/14.56.92.133]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} – robertsky (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{userlinks|Alijnr}}

User has not used the edit summary let alone talk page once, and they are completely ignoring the warnings they have received and my attempt to communicate with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289282657] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289282954] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289475927] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alijnr&diff=prev&oldid=1289556451]. They are mindlessly changing whatever they see from Persian to Dari (there are countless examples, here are some [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tajiks&diff=prev&oldid=1289556236] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durrani_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1289245599] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khanate_of_Bukhara&diff=prev&oldid=1289245687] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emirate_of_Bukhara&diff=prev&oldid=1289245816] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khanate_of_Kokand&diff=prev&oldid=1289245942] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamran_Mirza_Durrani&diff=prev&oldid=1289251503] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shah_Shujah_Durrani&diff=prev&oldid=1289251407] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaman_Shah_Durrani&diff=prev&oldid=1289251455]), even edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timur_Shah_Durrani&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sultan_Mohammad_Khan&action=history] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayub_Shah_Durrani&action=history]. This seems like a WP:SPA.

There may also be some meatpuppetry involved here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akram261. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I also earlier noticed {{user|Alijanhz}} who was making Dari/Persian changes, but they only edited on 18 April and then disappeared. Username is also awfully similar. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1179#Disruptive_IP_changing_Dari_to_Persian_and_other_POV_edits this] previous report. This is probably the same person. But there was no interest in taking action. Mellk (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Userlinks|Userbvvc}} has engaged in the removal of longstanding sourced content, source quotations as well as addition of unsourced, unreliably sourced and original research based essay-like stuff since their very first edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1286192491] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1286197987&oldid=1286192748] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1287211200&oldid=1287029708] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1286240592] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1286425752] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1287364411&oldid=1287211398] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1287416955] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1289101639&oldid=1287417347] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=prev&oldid=1289256298] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1289373245&oldid=1289260129] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1289540500&oldid=1289405036]. Their edits have been reverted by multiple users and have been warned, but apparently isn't interested in a talk page consensus.

Possible case of sockpuppetry as well since these edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1125813510&oldid=1112782213] (blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vk8435820]) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1241363404&oldid=1234498808] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1047170462&oldid=1046654528] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orh&diff=1286197987&oldid=1286192748] are similarly unreliably sourced and full of OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Userbvvc's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Userbvvc&diff=prev&oldid=1289540735 comment] on their talk page is clearly written by AI/LLM/chatbot. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::They haven't edited since, and they've been given two CTOP warnings in the meantime. If the disruption resumes, please report back here again. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|User blocked for 3 months. Wbm4567 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

@98.22.4.143 has been continuing to vandalize Wikipedia by making joke edits to Nickelodeon (movie theater) and TF1. That user has been warned three times after their edits to pages like Gros Caillou and Roger Roger (composer) blocked once for 48 hours, and was warned 3 more times by @Adakiko and me after their edits to Jean (surname), and the joke edits to the pages I mentioned above. Also, that user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Wbm4567 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Blocked for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@PhilKnight Great, thanks! Wbm4567 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Shoriful islam46}}

As can be seen in the edit history of the five articles on Indian-Pakistani border skirmishes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmish][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%932015_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%932018_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_border_skirmishes], in the last two weeks, and most especially during the last 24 hours, there have been a number of attempts by the newly-created account @Shoriful islam46 to insert false Indian and Pakistani casualty figures that are contrary to the cited references, calling them "corrections", despite being reverted by a number of editors. It would then seem this is simply a single-purpose POV-pushing account. The user has been warned at least once that his edits are unconstructive and despite this continued with his disruptive behavior. I wanted to point out the situation since all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic, as per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/India,_Pakistan,_and_Afghanistan], and to consider either higher protection for the mentioned articles, like at this article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_standoff] which was recently protected so it requires extended confirmed access, or that action be taken against Shoriful islam46 for his POV-pushing editing behavior. Thank you in advance. EkoGraf (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what happened to your post, but you links are just [text] rather than leading to diffs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested Yeah, I corrected this. Sorry, was a result of a copy-paste, my bad. I provided the links to the relevant articles now. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@EkoGraf you are supposed to provide these diff links: 2011 India–Pakistan border skirmish; 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmish (1), 2013 India–Pakistan border skirmish (2); 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (1), 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2); 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (1), 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2), 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (3); and 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (1), 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2), 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (3). -- I.Mahesh (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks @i.Mahesh, I thought it would give a better overview of his disruptive editing to just see the edit history of each of the five articles, considering the high number of disruptive edits in as much as five articles. Nevertheless, thank you very much for your effort to list all of his unsourced/disruptive edits. It should also be noted he has continued this behavior even today and even after being notified this discussion has been initiated. 2014–2015 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (3), 2016–2018 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (4), 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes (4). It should also be noted that in some instances (like today again) he does not even insert the same false figures as before, but different ones. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:@EkoGraf, you mention the IPA CTOP, but this editor has never been formally warned for it. I've just done that now. I encourage you to give this warning to every new account you spot in the topic area, since it makes dealing with their disruption much easier. I've also given them a warning about marking edits as minor, and I'll block briefly for edit-warring. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Jeira banki}}

All edits from {{User|Jeira banki}} are either ChatGPT-based or unreferenced. All are suspect and unreliable. I'd recommend a preventative indef block too, but I'll defer the closing admin's discretion on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ping {{ping|Asilvering}} who handled a similar case above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks, I hate it. These companies can't run out of venture capital soon enough. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=They wanted it, they got it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gabriel_Portes_Albino look at me..... I really want to get blocked] Moxy🍁 01:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Blocked.}}

• {{userlinks|Polvixv}}

This user is making repeated edits to Angry Birds Fight!. I asked why this is happening on their talk page, but there has not been a response. But the edits continue. Possible gaming of the system. Pibx (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This matter is urgent. At the time of this post being written, these edits are continuing to happen. This account seems to be a Vandalism only account, and probably ought to be blocked indefinitely Pibx (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Guy's already blocked. Scoophole2021 (talk). 05:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I posted before my computer refreshed to show that the blocked happened. Pibx (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = BLOCKED

| result = Indeffed and TPA revoked {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{userlinks|Boobybanjo}} Vandalism only account. Pibx (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you, or someone else also suppress their edits, especially the ones containing profanity? Pibx (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Insane i have to revert and revert the editing. Which is redundant addition and revert the non-announced links. --116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I done my editing with meaningless revert session which seen the user keep assuming the ownership by sticking to a redundancy of the contents, non-valid, not follow MOS. --116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:The admin told you to add convincing reasons on the talk page, but you took the wrong path and continued to sabotage and insist on your wrongdoings. You have hundreds of sabotage IPs. It is clear from the article archive page that you have a history of sabotage. With this IP, you also edited about football matches, which are on other sabotage accounts in the same articles, your sabotage user accounts.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{IP|116.87.80.136}}

Several admins told him to interact on the talk page. He did nothing for a week and only bullied, insulted, and vandalized various articles over 50 times with different IPs. He manipulates very simple and minor edits and considers himself the owner of the articles through bullying. More than four admins have acknowledged his vandalism. But it seems that the users' time is not important to you here and you allow this troll to continue his vandalism.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.189.68.127
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Numbers
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jianzi&diff=prev&oldid=1289053823
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:118.189.68.127#Trolling

Hello. This user's behavior is just destructive. After a week, he didn't have a single line of interaction and immediately started to sabotage after a week. Please lock both articles and block the IP.

By the way, this is very clear and simple. We are not going to ask permission from an IP troll to add a simple number or make a minor correction. Closing the article for a week and asking for interaction was also wrong. He simply intends to continue his wrongdoings and feels ownership over the articles.

By the way, I think one or two accounts from this article are associated with this IP.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Protected_edit_request_on_4_May_2025
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zul_Alfarisi
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fahrurozi.86
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aleenf1

Also he add hate speech here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326

Vandalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.87.80.136

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe2023 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Jooe2023, you need to stop removing their posts and stop calling them a vandal or troll, claiming they've written "hate speech", etc. right now. You've demonstrated none of that. The edit warring by both of you across multiple articles is egregious, but you look far worse than they do at the moment. Remsense ‥ 论 08:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:This user was given a week to write his comments on the talk page. But he took the rude path. I added the evidence on the talk page. But after a week, without writing his defense on the talk page, he started attacking on the user page and has been continuously vandalizing with different IPs for a few days now.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Again, you need to stop this immediately. You have not demonstrated any vandalism on their part. I see them pointing out issues they see with your edits (while egregiously edit warring, which you gladly reciprocate) but you're the one who has no arguments and merely insults them, as far as I can see. You haven't engaged with their concerns at all. You're seemingly trying to leverage the fact you've (very recently) registered an account as if that makes you superior to an anonymous user, which is also totally unacceptable. Remsense ‥ 论 08:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Jooe2023: if I see another edit summary like {{xt|This idiot IP should be polite. He seems too stupid and ignorant. IP troll Vandalist}} from you, I'd encourage administrators to consider a block for incivility, regardless of what the IP has or hasn't done. Remsense ‥ 论 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm appeared like a vandal? Please looking what are you done so far? You have a long road to become a successfull Wikipedian, and you doesn't, you think you owned the article after your editing. in the earliest day of Sudirman Cup that's no real database to call it, we don't know how many edition and teams, and you just "assume" it, not even BWF website list it. I'm going to revert for final times, if you revert, that's what it should be tell about you. Also, you revert like blindly for a non-announced tournmanet, which should not be appeared too soon to avoid vandalism. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:You also failed to notify User:Zul Alfarisi, User:Fahrurozi.86, or User:Aleenf1 that their conduct was under discussion here, as you are very clearly told you must do, so I've had to do that on your behalf. Remsense ‥ 论 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't agree with you. The previous admin suggested locking the article for a week to reach a conclusion on the talk page. The user said in an ugly and impolite tone that he doesn't interact on the article's talk page. I also told him that your opinion doesn't matter to me. If you don't have a correct argument after a week, the article will return to its correct state. I did the correct way of interacting on the talk page. This IP is someone who is looking for a fight and conflict. Since he had nothing logical to say in return, he has taken the path of conflict by bullying. At least 4 admins have warned him on the talk pages of his destructive IPs.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:He started the rudeness and insults, and I responded. If he had been polite, he would have received the right answer. See the rudeness he started here.

:Also he add hate speech here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326 Jooe2023 (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is the final time I will ask you to stop making this particular accusation. That is not "hate speech"—it is a far more civil expression of frustration than literally any remark I've seen you write. Remsense ‥ 论 08:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Beyond that, Jooe2023, when you come back from your block, you had better take a look at WP:CIVIL. Every other editor on Wikipedia should receive the "right answer," whether or not you believe they're being rude. You do not get to be uncivil to other editors, ever. Ravenswing 10:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:He uses IP so that his malicious accounts are not compromised. Here I will show you which is his main account.Jooe2023 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::See, reverted again without proper explanation. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given your refusal to stop making any of these WP:personal attacks, as well as serious accusations without proof, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is clearly in order regardless of what is or is not the case with other editors. Remsense ‥ 论 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::(I have now explicitly warned both Jooe2023 and 116.87.80.136 for edit warring.) Remsense ‥ 论 09:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't mind you block me, but is that any reason you want to keep the article on the wrong foot? I know Wikipedia has a lot of policy but this policy is somehow manipulated by somebody who is keen to see his editing stick. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It is generally considered the primary priority to get editors to engage in discussion when there are disagreements, because Wikipedia operates according to editor consensus. The MOS (which I agree with you about as applies here, for what it's worth) is a guideline that is the result of a broad editor consensus, for example.

::::Clearly demonstrated by these tugs-of-war is that the encyclopedia cannot function if editors only consider what they personally think is correct without establishing consensus with others. Remsense ‥ 论 09:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm assuming you are right, but i made reverted for one last time for right revision, if he going to revert again, you think yourself a conclusion. Sorry done here. Thanks for your reply. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I wish you had not done that. You're making your case harder. Remsense ‥ 论 09:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What is so harder than let it go, if does the right things exchanged with the pain from the policy, who wants to make edit. Don't be silly, i'm already voice it "legitimately". 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't know what to tell you, other than I agree with you as regards the substance, but repeat that edit warring is not acceptable, regardless of whether you're right. Like I said to Joee2023 below, you likewise could've reached out for help to other editors to help establish consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 09:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::"Consensus", if same page can reach, if doesn't just like a troll also for them, i seen a lot of case already, even i am not a regular editor. 116.87.80.136 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Other Accounts of this Ip:

:He love Broadcast Football Article and badminton like:

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup_broadcasting_rights&diff=prev&oldid=1166024761

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2027_AFC_Asian_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=1289384349

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.189.68.127

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aleenf1

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hongqilim - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHongqilim

:Aleen and Hongqilim and Ip. They look very similar and they have done enough sabotage in these articles.

:You (Remsense) also seem to be taking a one-sided view of IP. Jooe2023 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can only judge what I see, and what I is entirely unacceptable conduct on your part. I'm not exaggerating—you have not listened to a single thing anyone else has said to you, save to interpret an admin's remarks such that you were not being asked to do anything, only the IP. As you continue to accuse others of engaging in sockpuppetry with no basis other than them editing the same articles, I see no way to make this disruption end other than a block being applied to your account. Remsense ‥ 论 09:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This IP showed interest in editing war instead of interacting on the talk page. I started interacting on the talk page. But you take the IP's side. I understand everything. Just judging based on taste.

:::I hate here now. Jooe2023 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've made it perfectly clear you both are liable to blocks for edit warring—it takes two to tango, and you've reverted exactly as much as they have. If they didn't engage but continued to revert, you had many options (like posting a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football asking others to engage and help establish consensus). The difference—that you have baselessly accused them of sockpuppetry and hate speech, while yourself making unacceptable personal attacks against them—is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. That you've continued apace with this behavior is your responsibility, not anyone else's. Remsense ‥ 论 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For the sake of admins perusing the "evidence" of sockpuppetry (if I can even decode what it is meant to be):

:::::* User:Aleenf1 hasn't edited since July 2023.

:::::* User:Fahrurozi.86 last edited Sudirman Cup in June 2023.

:::::* I do not even understand why they are accusing User:Zul Alfarisi or User:Hongqilim, who've never edited either Sudirman Cup or Jianzi. I do not understand how they were even singled out.

:::::* There are no meaningful parallels I can identify between the editing habits of any of these users.

:::::This shows an unbelievable disregard for potentially opposing evidence by Jooe2023 and a willingness for others to face repercussions based on their kneejerk emotional responses to others disagreeing with their edits. I am not certain they're being deliberately dishonest, but that they are not taking a step back from their substanceless accusations, and instead adding more to the pile, is a sign they can't collaborate at all with others on here, unfortunately. Remsense ‥ 论 09:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think Remsense's judgment on this issue has been exactly on point. You've thrown a lot of accusations at this IP that have yet to be substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Just because one has a good-faith basis to believe that another editor is making bad edits does not justify any behavior whatsoever about that person. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326

The politeness and goodwill of IP is clear from this link. It seems that instead of creating an account, it is better to edit with IP and insult whoever we like. Instead of writing documents on the talk page, let's start a war on the article a hundred times because that is exactly how you like it?Jooe2023 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who opened the way for interaction, and I have no other words. I also complained about your one-sided judgment.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Numbers

And the one who started reversing the hundred times was IP.Jooe2023 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Quinlan

This admin can confirm my opinion. You have wasted enough of my time. While everything is clear and obvious. Adding the period of the competition in all sports competitions is in hundreds of articles and I have to waste several hours of my time arguing with you for such a ridiculous and simple thing. It is really a pity.Jooe2023 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Both Jooe2023 and the IP have been blocked 31 hours for treating WP:3RR as if it were the Grand Prix of Monaco. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also fully protected the article for a week, since the previous lock for a week apparently did nothing. Everyone be advised that if the edit war resumes again when the protection expires, the next blocks are gonna be for a lot longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry I was away from my computer for a while. I hope the above feedback, followed by these necessary blocks and the restored page protection, will help both parties come to their senses, stop edit warring, and either have a civil discussion or walk away. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atopg

| result = Jooe2023 returned to pit by The Bushranger, per WP:BOOMERANG. {{nac}} Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remsense

At the suggestion of admin Quan Lan, an article was to be closed for a week so that a conclusion could be drawn on the talk page. I wrote the reasons on the talk page. But IP had no reason. This user is favoring IP based on taste instead of examining the evidence. If IP had any reasons, he should have added them on the talk page. I took the interactive route, but IP resorted to an edit war. I complain about this wrong and one-sided judgment.Jooe2023 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudirman_Cup#Numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/118.189.68.127

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.87.80.136

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&diff=prev&oldid=1289667326

:You ought to retract this while you still have the opportunity to do so. Adding a frivolous complaint against another editor just makes it less likely that your accusations against the IP editor in the section above were made in good faith. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Jooe2023}}, you are advised to retract this now, because this will only end with you being hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Struck that because, having looked at the article in question...dear lawd have mercy. Jooe and the IP are both now blocked as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just noting Jooe2023's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jooe2023&diff=prev&oldid=1289709195 response to the block]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

this message full of personal attacks by {{userlinks|MrEarlGray}} speaks for itself 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The above user misuses the incidents noticeboard to censor anyone who disagrees with their edit warring. I stand by my speculation that they are using Wikipedia to push nationalist sentiments and potentially using sockpuppet accounts. MrEarlGray (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Again with the baseless claims. I am okay with running a cu on me, tho, I am interested in knowing who you think my socks are 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|MrEarlGray}} Do you have any diffs of this alleged edit warring? Or evidence of Abo Yemen pushing 'nationalist sentiments'? Without any diffs, this is just casting aspersions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The user's edit history demonstrates hundreds of incidences wherein any mention of "mixed Arab culture" is replaced with statements of "Yemeni heritage". This is especially the case if any mention of Saudi Arabia is made likely due to the ongoing Saudi-Yemen conflict. The Kabsa article is a prime example of this behaviour, wherein sources demonstrating mixed cultural heritage are purged and cherrypicked blog and self-published book sources are substituted to suggest the foodstuff is being purely Yemeni origin. Similar actions can be found across a number of their edits and this pro-Yemeni bias is what I attribute to 'nationalistic behaviour'. Unfortunately, such behaviour naturally leads to edit wars and when the community disagrees with a purging or biased source, the user locks the article behind a vandalism tag to keep their point of view held until the tag expires. I've noticed they also misuse this incidents noticeboard to censor those who speak out against their POV in talk pages - as is being done now. This is not the behaviour one should expect from a Wikipedian, hence my criticism. MrEarlGray (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not a single diff provided. Plus, this statement of yours: "{{tq|1=The Kabsa article is a prime example of this behaviour, wherein sources demonstrating mixed cultural heritage are purged and cherrypicked blog and self-published book sources are substituted to suggest the foodstuff is being purely Yemeni origin.}}" is just false. The article's lead clearly says {{tq|1=Kabsa [...] is an Arabian mixed rice dish that originates from Saudi Arabia or Yemen.}} There are simply no sources claiming a {{tq|1=mixed cultural heritage}}, and if you find any then please go ahead and change the wording to my proposal on the talkpage of changing the wording to "originates from the Arabian Peninsula" instead of ignoring it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::There is no need to treat this page as an article talk page. However, the article only reads as such because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1158229391&oldid=1158228129 you have been pushing that narrative since 2023 as shown here] and have been removing counter sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabsa&diff=1163309261&oldid=1162373506 as shown here]. MrEarlGray (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Those edits were made when I just created my account. Saying that I have been doing that since 2023 is a lie. I denounce that first edit, but I see nothing wrong with the second one 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Nvm now that I've rechecked the source that was used, my removal of it was warranted. The source (or blog article) was being misrepresented: {{tq|1=Kabsa (Arabic: كبسة, transliterated to khabsa, khabsa and kapsa) is a blend of spices originating in Saudi Arabia and used, especially in the Arab world.}} It was about a completely different thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I've also added back a source in the following edit which was removed by JohnnyPedro1998 a few days before that edit 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's very disheartening to see comments like this being made. MrEarlGray is clearly casting aspersions (baselessly accusing Abo Yemen of sockpuppetry and POV-pushing) and their allegations of nationalist editing from Abo Yemen remain unsupported. MrEarlGray's comment is very clearly a personal attack. From what I know of Abo Yemen's editing, they are one of the few editors in this topic area to actually care about creating content and not pushing a POV. Their content is very well-written and I would guess that by the end of the year, they'll have multiple GAs under their belt. MrEarlGray should be reminded to always be civil and to avoid making personal attacks and casting aspersions at other people. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I stand by my claims that the user is pushing a biased POV to further pro-Yemeni sentiments by scrubbing articles of Saudi and Arab content. A simple inspection of their edit history demonstrates this to be the case in numerous instances. Furthermore, my original statement was not a personal attack no matter how it may have been interpreted, it was instead a statement that the user continues to purges articles of content and sources they disagree with on a massive, daily scale. It's also especially poor behaviour to also lock articles behind a 'vandalism' tag whenever someone changes what they want represented on Wikipedia. Using the incidents noticeboard like this to repeatedly censor users who disagree with his edits is a gross form of misbehaviour and should never be tolerated. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You accused them of sockpuppetry with no evidence. That is a personal attack which is a gross form of misbehaviour and something that is tolerated. It is not censorship, you don't have any free speech rights here and have to obey our policies and guidelines including refraining from making personal attacks if you want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tqq|simple inspection of their edit history}}. No. You must provide diffs to back up your claims. WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@The Bushranger, did you already click through to the remark in question? ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1289713657]) I don't want to take admin action if another admin has already looked and declined to do so, but that's really quite unusually bad for the genre, and MrEarlGray isn't exactly a new editor who hasn't yet learned that this isn't reddit. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Asilvering}} I have now, and yeah, that's absolutely unacceptable. If you want to take action first, then by all means. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am genuinely surprised to find that's a first-time block. @MrEarlGray, when that expires, you're welcome to return to the discussion on that article, but you'll need to reset your WP:AGF. That's not a particularly easy ask, so if you want my advice, my advice is: stay away from that article, and from Abo Yemen, to the greatest extent possible. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How relevant was it to bring up my age in that discussion? That comment was definitely not a personal attack{{sarcasm}} 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Blocked

| result = Blocked and rev del'd. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Please take immediate action [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/42.118.118.147] Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = Blocked

| result = Blocked and rev del'd. Ping me if I've missed any. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{IP|2405:201:A006:23E5:AED:5C35:9F1C:DF17}} used racial/ethnic slurs (see Paki (slur)) in two edit summaries located at {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289768569}} and {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289769120}}. I have warned them on their talk page but thought it may be best given the subject matter and recent events to bring it up here too. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 18:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Ableist slurs also from the same /64 {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289702889}} and {{diff|PAF Base Nur Khan|1289650505}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}