Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPI making promotional edits

1. User:Chetsford sent Christopher Mellon to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon
2. I remade it from scratch, it passed AfC, and is live at Christopher Mellon.
3. User:Chetsford created Matthew T. Mellon today, apparently about Christopher Mellon's grandfather.
4. Turns out that his grandfather liked the Nazis in the 1930s.
5. User:Chetsford added this to the BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435

: He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American. Matthew Mellon taught American Studies at the University of Freiburg in Freiburg, Germany throughout the 1930s. According to Princeton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast", though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934, Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming".

Please see: Talk:Christopher Mellon#Extended negative family history is inappropriate for a WP:BLP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's not exactly the sequence of events as they occurred. However, since the editors here are capable of reviewing it for themselves, I won't trouble the noticeboard with corrections. (For background, this appears connected to a long-running issue over the last several weeks in which UFO enthusiasts have been vociferously objecting to the addition or deletion of content about flying saucers and flying saucer advocates (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#Chetsford_Lying, [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#IP editor WP:NOTHERE]], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#I've been banned from reverting a Wikipedia page back to its original status before it started being brigaded. The genesis issue originated with an off-WP campaign ginned-up by the radio show Coast to Coast AM.) [https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2025-04-27-show/] Sorry for the ongoing bother. Chetsford (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::This has to do with you seemingly creating an article specifically to work familial Nazi allegations into a WP:BLP article against policy, as an Administrator. It's also the exact sequence of events. Your apparent ongoing war with the Internet is irrelevant, and between yourself and the Internet. This is about the WP:BLP article at Christopher Mellon that you sent to AfD (and won), the remade article I made that passed AFC, your sudden creation of Matthew T. Mellon, and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435 edit of yours to insert the word Nazi repeatedly] and six total pro-Nazi citations about a WP:BLP subject's long dead possibly non-notable ancestor. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, okay. Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This appears to be a question for WP:ANI. Or take grandpa to WP:AFD. I'm not sure your concern belongs at BLPN. But since you're here, I don't see any WP:UNDUE for a grandfather's mere mention. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::How is the grandfather notable though? Other than being part of a family line and a known sympathiser? – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV apparently. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Take the grandfather to WP:AFD if you believe that they are not notable. This doesn't belong at WP:ANI. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::does blp apply for this article? WP:BDP stipulates anyone born after 1910 is covered and this mellon that chetsford created was born in 1896 and died more than 30 years ago. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yo {{u|Bluethricecreamman}}, it's the article on the younger Mellon to which BLP is being claimed, as although his da died over 30 years ago (and was a Nazi sympathizer), his son is still with us, and to be fair, not a Nazi (of course, the article doesn't suggest that he is). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"born after 1910": That's a misreading of WP:BDP. That section addresses cases where the subject has not been confirmed dead, in which case there is a safe assumption that if the person would be over 115 years old, they can be assumed to be dead unless there exists recent (within 2 years) evidence that they are alive. Where a subject has been confirmed dead, BLP stops applying within 2 years after death--the period it applies after death is indenterminate but roughly bounded by the two-year limit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, it is appropriate for editors to make new pages. These types of questions belong at WP:Teahouse. 12.75.41.48 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Jesus, this is pathetic. Make the article, sure. Shoehorn negative information about a subject's grandfather, using sources from the 1930s, into a BLP that you AfD'd? The most gentle, sweet, charitable reading here is that Chetsford has a dangerously poor understanding of WP:SYNTH, and should probably be given some sort of topic ban to prevent other BLPs from having such content introduced to them. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Chetsford has begun a RFC on the WP:BLP page to include details of the BLP's dead ancestor's pro-Nazi views. See here:

Talk:Christopher Mellon#Should appositive descriptors be used for Matthew T. Mellon?

I have no idea what to do here; this seems wildly wrong and disruptive. Please help. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's not an RfC. It's just a run-of-the-mill discussion. You reverted an edit I made, so I opened a discussion about it. That's how things usually work here on Wikipedia. You can read more about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle here. Chetsford (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's not an RfC, but it's damn close to one. And it's structured in such a way that if you get the result that you want you can make the edits that you want, and if you don't you can quietly ignore it. I'd drop this if I were you, it's not going to end anywhere good. misunderstood post and thought the discussion had been opened at BLP noticeboardBoynamedsue (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{xt|"it's structured in such a way that if you get the result that you want you can make the edits that you want"}} Um, yes, I guess? Sorry, I'm not sure where the scandal is here. Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So, we return to the question, why are you investing a massive amount of time and effort into getting the word "nazi" into the article of a not-nazi?.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Xt|"a massive amount of time and effort"}} Are you referring to the one edit I made? It wasn't much time or effort at all! Chetsford (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why are editors expanding articles on a platform in which that is generally encouraged? Is that the extent of your question? TarnishedPath^talk 04:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::BTW, it is extremely unedifying to see an admin create an article, based on two 1930s newspaper stories, with the sole intention of getting the word "nazi" into the article of someone who appears not to have made any far right utterances in their life.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{xt|"an admin create an article"}} This is true. {{Xt|"based on two 1930s newspaper stories"}} This is not. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We can't see intent, we can only see the edits. FWIW, I don't think someone's grandfather being a German man in the 1930s who liked the Nazi party really qualifies as "a sensational ancestral claim" does it? There's nothing sensational about it, unfortunately. I assume it's pretty common, so that element of the arguments against inclusion doesn't strike me as useful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The arguments for or against textual content are ongoing at Talk:Christopher Mellon. For much the same reason you just stated, the information is WP:UNDUE in the BLP but fine to link as a mere mention. JFHJr (㊟) 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There look to be only two Reliable Sources giving definite WP:SIGCOV on the page, both newspaper articles from the 1930s. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article (also from the 1930s) is borderline. The rest of them are either passing mentions or not RS themselves. Why on earth did you make this article?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{xt|"Why on earth did you make this article?"}} Why on earth haven't you nominated it for deletion? Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Because I saw it 15 minutes ago, and the 15 minutes it would take to nominate for AfD is more time than I wish to spend on a dead nazi-sympathiser of no historical note. Now, can you answer my question, why did you spend several hours writing and (nearly) sourcing an article on this individual?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{xt|"why did you spend several hours writing and (nearly) sourcing an article"}} You're asking why I'm a Wikipedian? Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, I am not. As you well know, I am asking why, of all the possible articles you could choose to create, you created one which is based on 90-year-old newspaper articles and allows you to add the word "nazi" to a BLP of a person you really don't like. Do you want to try answering?--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{xt|"I am asking why, of all the possible articles you could choose to create, you created one which is based on 90-year-old newspaper articles"}} One possibility is that I extensively contribute BLPs about early 20th century academics from Pennsylaniva, such as Henry Lamar Crosby, Herman Vandenburg Ames, John Musser, John Nevin Schaeffer, etc., etc., and Matthew T. Mellon is yet another early 20th century academic from Pennsylvania. I suppose, another possibility is that my years of content creation on this topic is all part of an ingenious, years-long conspiracy I've concocted that culminated today as part of a diabolical plot I've been jealously harboring. So I guess one of those two? Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So just to clarify, as that is not exactly a straight answer, you maintain that the fact you recently tried to have the Matthew T. Mellon's grandson's page deleted, then created a page for Matthew T. Mellon, then added the word "nazi" to the grandson's page are three completely unrelated facts?--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Speaking of conspiracies, maybe it's time for @Chetsford to step back, self topic ban, whatever, from conspiracy/fringe topics. Fighting their promotion should not include seemingly illegitimate means. JFHJr (㊟) 06:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm still waiting to hear what the "illegitimate means" are! So far the working theory seems to be: Chetsford has created articles on early 20th century Pennsylvania academics for the last five years; he nominated Christopher Mellon for deletion and it was deleted at AfD; then more than a month later he created an article on an early 20th century Pennsylvania academic Matthew T. Mellon and it's not notable but, despite its clear and obvious non-notability, for some reason no one can nominate it for deletion. Also, we thought he started an RfC -- and somehow that's bad -- but then we realized that he didn't actually open an RfC so had to strike that.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290174475]
I was honestly less confused about the previous theory where I was supposedly the former CIA director [https://x.com/YouThrall/status/1916943675646742580] secretly editing Wikipedia! LOL. Anyway, this has been fun, as always. Chetsford (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'm sorry if my using the TB word planted a seed that grew into... below. My comment was informal and I didn't mean to be vaguely accusatory. So here: it looks like a revenge addition to me and others, and some editors would prefer you try to be a little more dispassionate about WP:UNDUE content, when a wink (wl) suffices as more than enough of a middle finger. The self TB suggestion was not my idea of a community invitation to discuss it. Sorry. It was just for you to consider. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I remember this case from the article on James B. Conant. Accepting scholarships from Germany was a big issue at the time, because Harvard's governing Corporation did not want it made an issue, but the student body was increasingly anti-fascist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Which admin tools, exactly, are being alleged as having been misused here? Or is "he's an admin!!" just being brought up in the context of WP:OWB #37? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:* I have no idea why the word "admin" is in the section header, since their status appears to be irrelevant here. In the end, I think this is simply a content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:Absolutely a content dispute, their adminship is entirely irrelevant here. Also seems like it doesn't belong at ANI and contains a good amount of bad faith assumptions and aspersions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::{{tq|contains a good amount of bad faith assumptions and aspersions}} (immediately above). That's for sure. ANI is inappropriate for a content dispute(s), and comments by the OP and some others are far too personal. I suggest that this be Closed with no action before the attacks against Chetsford get people blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:::Indeed. Or a one-way IB for User:Very Polite Person, who seems to have had a beef with Chetsford ever since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sol Foundation. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:*::Just found this. I agre. When I edit or create articles I don’t do it as an Admin. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Because BLP vios are serious, and even more so when they're done by admins. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::BLP vios are serious. Adminship has absolutely nothing to do with it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:ADMINCOND is a thing. Also we expect admins to uphold policy, not violate it. Don't kid yourself into thinking that because it doesn't involve admin tools, adminship is irrelevant. It's very relevant. Admins are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a straightforward way to adjudicate this complaint, but I'm not going to take the time to do the research to figure it out; perhaps VPP or Chetsford will do the research to bolster their claims/defense:

Either the RSes about Christopher Mellon mention that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer, in which case that detail would be an WP:ASPECT that should be included in the Wikipedia article, or the RSes about Christopher Mellon (not about his grandfather) don't mention the grandfather, in which case the edit special:Diff/1290142756 adding that information to Christopher Mellon's article is a major violation of WP:ASPECT (and thus NPOV), as well as WP:SYNTH (part of OR), and since it's undue negative material about a living person, it's a serious violation of BLP.

I'm not sure what the RS say about it, but if RS cover it then Chet was correct to include it and VPP's accusations are false. If the RS don't cover it, then Chet has some explaining to do as to why they're SYNTHing BLPvios, because ORing BLPvios is a red line. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Either the RSes about Christopher Mellon mention that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer,}}

:I've never seen any such source, have you {{ping|Chetsford}}? The only Christopher Mellon mentioning source I've seen that gets into his grandparents is a reference by name to his maternal grandfather from a different family name. I have seen not one source that gets into "Christopher Mellon" plus Matthew T. Mellon plus Nazis. All of User:Chetsford's Matthew T. Mellon Nazi-sources are about Matthew T. Mellon--not Christopher Mellon. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I generally agree with Levivich's anaylsis, with one exception: even if RS's about CM discuss MM's Nazi sympathies, that paragraph was a pretty big UNDUE problem. It looks like there's consensus on the article talk page to remove/reduce it, but I don't think it's crazy to bring this here; adding that paragraph was a dick move. I realize Chetford has been attacked by UFU loons off-wiki (and maybe on-wiki, I'm not up to speed), and he's been generally on the right side of anti-loonness, but this paragraph was deeply uncool. I think it's worth warning Chetsford to be much more careful with BLPs. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you Levivich—the sources on C. Mellon indeed do not mention this aspect of his grandfather, so it is a very clear SYNTHing, and I would be interested in reading Chetsford’s response to this matter, without deflecting to more easily answered questions, like whether MTM is notable (which is not the substance of this ANI posting). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} As someone who has not been following this dispute, and whose only interest in the topic is Christopher Mellon's role as an early founder of USSOCOM, I don't see the issue here and am very confused as to why there's a dispute. Christopher Mellon himself is clearly notable. His role in creating the legislative and legal framework for the modern U.S. special operations establishment is not in dispute here at all, and would justify an article even if he had no relationship whatsoever to UFOs or his family's lineage. He's also the scion of a one of the most prominent families in the U.S. (on the level of a Carnegie, or an Astor, or a Prescott/Bush -- families whose connections with Nazi Germany are certainly explored on the relevant articles as well). There appears to be no serious dispute about Matthew T. Mellon's Nazi support, the claims of which were prominently covered by reliable sources contemporaneously at the time as well as continued into modern day. So I'm baffled as to what the supposed issue is here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:You're baffled? Oh well, perhaps someone else will read my comment and be able to parse it. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your comment was posted while I was drafting my response; timestamps are hard, I know...⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, that is indeed my mistake, the indenting implies you're responding to me, but that's not your fault. The way the "reply to" tool handled that led me astray. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::(actually, the timestamps would indicated that I'm right, but as you say, they're hard. and I'll accept the possibility that you hadn't actually read my comment.) Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, my comment was edit-conflicted, so I just refreshed and reposted (without having seen your response) and did not remove the outdent (I've always interpreted an outdent template as "Let me step back from this threaded discussion and approach this from some different angle" rather than as a reply to someone). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|There appears to be no serious dispute about Matthew T. Mellon's Nazi support, the claims of which were prominently covered by reliable sources contemporaneously at the time as well as continued into modern day. So I'm baffled as to what the supposed issue is here.}}

:This edit by Chetsford: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435

:George W. Bush may have familial ancient pro-Nazi history in his "bloodline", but control-f shows no "nazi" text in his page, or Early life of George W. Bush, or Bush family. All of Chetsfords sources about Matthew T. Mellon and Nazism are about Matthew T. Mellon--not about Christopher Mellon. No one objects to a link to Matthew T. Mellon on Christopher Mellon--I added that myself after I saw the new article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435 It's that wild edit jamming 6+ "mellon family are nazi boosters"] by User:Chetsford into Christopher Mellon that are the problem. Massively WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think you would have much stronger case if Matthew T. Mellon weren't objectively notable... People are allowed to improve the encyclopedia out of spite and in the context there where the subject is arguably only important because of the family he was born into then a good deal more family history than we normally include is relevant. I also fail to see what Chetsford being an admin has anything to do with it... And I would point out that if they just wanted to shoehorn that info into the BLP they didn't need to make an article for Matthew T. Mellon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|the context there where the subject is arguably only important because of the family he was born into}}
• :I'd say Matthew T. Mellon is notable more for family, but a trivial review of Christopher Mellon shows he's not notable because of his family, but for his careers, works, and only partly his family. Does [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435 this edit] look WP:BLP and WP:DUE compliant? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::However you want to cut it Matthew T. Mellon is in fact notable. Christopher's career appears to be largely dependent on his last name, without it he doesn't get any of those cushy positions. He isn't for example qualified in any way other than his last name to serve on the board of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Without those family contributions he has no career in the senate, he had no expert qualifications... He was a "expert" senate staffer because of his last name. Matthew and Christopher are both nepo babies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::No offense, but nothing you wrote is relevant to whether it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435 appropriate to put an entire paragraph] into a living WP:BLP article, 100% sourced from articles not about the actual WP:BLP subject (who has not one single source that is about/SIGCOV the BLP subject that gets into allegations of Nazi support by one of his ancestors) into that BLP's article. In what way is it WP:BLP compliant to drop a paragraph into a given BLP's article about how his meemaw was a Big Nazi Fan, when meemaw being a Big Nazi Fan has nothing to do with the notability of the BLP themselves, and no RS even touch the BLP's meemaw being a Nazi fan, that are about the BLP? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::: You said "he's not notable because of his family, but for his careers, works" but I see nothing in his career or works which is seperate from his family, he only has those roles because of his last name. Yes it appears WP:BLP and WP:DUE compliant. Whether or not its ideal is an entirely different question and I would have written it very differently, but that doesn't mean that anything besides my way is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::"Nepo baby" discussions are an off-topic tangent; arguably a WP:BLP violation themselves.
• :::::It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435 this edit] and attempts to put data that Christopher Mellon's grandfather supported Nazis in the 1930s, before Christopher Mellon was born, 100% sourced from articles not about the WP:BLP, are a rules violation. Your or my view on the people involved or their merit is utterly irrelevant. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Its certainly common to use sources about a subject's family that do not mention that subject for background. It is not a bright line rules violation, which is why you find yourself having to argue that multiple things which are not violations are together a violation... And I can see it that way, but I can also see it the other way and I'm just not seeing any really good reasons to go against WP:AGF on this one... As I said before if Matthew wasn't actually notable and Christopher's biography wasn't dependent on his family name you would have a strong case here... As it is I suggest you drop the stick and see what you can work out content wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Your views that Christopher Mellon is only notable by his name or through his 30-year career because of his name is your personal opinion and has literally zero WP:RS that is able to WP:BLP compliant source this in any actionable way. There is no value in your continuing to bring it up.
• :::::::The question is literally: is it a WP:BLP violation to drop an entire paragraph into your WP:BLP, if it turned out your great-grandfather was a Nazi soldier, and it was all about how he was a Nazi soldier, with all the relevant pro-Nazi sources predating your birth by decades? Do we do that for other WP:BLPs, whose ancestors were Nazis? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::: No that would not be a BLP violation. Please do not make this personal, I encourage you to return to being polite and civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• This is, as mentioned, a content dispute. The "admin" bit is simply brought in as a cudgel in an attempt to scare people with. ANI does not adjuciate content disputes. This should be closed and discussion continued on the article talk pages, and if that does doesn't resolve it, other forms of WP:DR should be attempted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :BLPvios are not a content dispute, they're a conduct dispute. Levivich (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Agree that this is not a simple content dispute. Should any editor - let alone an admin - add detailed and negative content about somebody's relative to that person's BLP article? The answer to me is no. Saying that Woody Harrelson's father was a hitman who was in prison is fine but sufficient. What Chetsford added here is entirely inappropriate and concerning. GiantSnowman 19:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Actually I wonder if there really is a policy ambiguity (or more like, a "gap") here on WP:BLP and I'd be curious if I've either simply missed the relevant line, or if it doesn't exist. So, the top of WP:BLP unambiguously states {{tq|"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."}} and cites to footnote B, which quotes relevant portions of the Rachel Marsden case and the Manning case. The Marsden quote says {{tq|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry."}} The Manning quote says {{tq|"The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page."}}. Between these three statements (which as best as I can tell are the only ones that cover the applicability in scenarios where the article subject is not the person about whom the claim is being made) there appears to be a gap -- all three apply to statements made about "living people", even if not the subject of the article. But in this case, Matthew T. Mellon is not a living person, he died in 1992. The statement in question is about Matthew T. Mellon. So what we have is a statement made *on* a BLP, that is not about a living person, but whose existence carries an unspoken implication *about* that living person. As written, it would seem like this is not actually covered by the BLP policy and probably needs to be made explicit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|As written, it would seem like this is not actually covered by the BLP policy and probably needs to be made explicit.}}
• :Do you mean the scenario of putting negative information about dead ancestors into a living BLP, where it can cause inference the BLP is somehow tied to their ancestors acts/beliefs, is a problem that somehow escaped WP:BLP all this time? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::If the information makes absolutely no direct reference to the living person, it seems like yes that may be the case. As strictly written, the policy appears to only cover statements that mention living people, material about living people, or that are references to living people. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|If the information makes absolutely no direct reference to the living person, it seems like yes that may be the case}}
• :::User:Chetsford to establish Matthew T. Mellon as a Nazi enthusiast in WP:BLP Christopher Mellon used sources from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-14 1938], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-harvardrebuff-15 1934], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-16 1934 again], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-17 1935 again], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-18 1935 a third time], and finally [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-19 1950]. Given Christopher Mellon was not born until 1957 or 1958 and not one single WP:RS seems to go anywhere within a light year of "Chris Mellon's grandpa liked Nazis in the 1930s," is this edit by User:Chetsford done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435#cite_note-19 here in this link] a violation of WP:BLP? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::In my opinion, a bright-line reading of WP:BLP would say no. It might be a poorly written paragraph, a WP:COATRACK for sure, but "He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American." does not violate BLP; and the subsequent sentences are all exclusively about Matthew T. Mellon, who is long dead. Regardless, they all appear to reflect what their attributed sources say, rather than what you're presenting as a conclusion of ""Chris Mellon's grandpa liked Nazis in the 1930s". If you think that's contrary to the intent of the BLP policy, I'd refer back to my suggestion that perhaps it needs to be made explicit whether the policy covers *implications* about living people that can be inferred from statements about long-dead people. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{tqq| perhaps it needs to be made explicit whether the policy covers *implications* about living people that can be inferred from statements about long-dead people.}} Which opens the can of worms of WP:SYNTH... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on User:Swatjester's remarks here, I have raised this there for discussion as well:

:* Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#How does WP:BLP handle adding negative details about ones ancestors?

It seems there remains no consensus if this addition is a WP:BLP violation, a content issue, or a conduct issue. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• A new front has been opened at the WP:RSN. A Polite Person... isn't. They are weaponizing these processes. This, plus the continued aspersions against Chetsford, demonstrate a battleground approach that is unlikely to change without sanctions. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 21:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That was opened at the suggestion of User:Swatjester. I'm here to build articles, as I have been. This entire WP:BLP headache has been a disruptive headache from that. Apparently my crime is building a thoroughly rigorously sourced article that I'm trying to push to GA and FA, amongst all the other articles I've been working on? What exactly would be I sanctioned for? Being more efficient at rules-compliant sourcing than some other editors? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I suggested that the point about ambiguity in the scope of coverage regarding statements exclusively about dead people on an article about living people, should be brought there for clarification. I was not suggesting anything about *this* particular dispute needed to be brought there. This is a completely generalizable issue; this dispute is simply an example case.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't know if we've reached the point of protective actions as your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior seems peculiarized to me for now (e.g. {{Xt|"accept... the rejection of your position"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1290314147], {{xt|"admit you lost"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1290159390], {{xt|"Do you agree to my terms?"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sol_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1288364237], {{xt|"You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sol_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1288257432], {{xt|"you and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors"}}, etc.) I assume that's because I'm the only person active at these niche articles and your ire will be turned against anyone else who joins, but I can't say that for certain, of course. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Why didn't you link that last one with {{tq|you and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors}}, where I actually praised you, told you you're a better writer than I am, and asked you very openly to explain why these sorts of things keep happening, and my basic point of view, and to try and understand why you and other people have managed to spectacularly confuse not just me, but other people as well?

::::-> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1290324194

::::How come? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::And now we've descended to the level of attacking people based on their usernames. Not cool. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly, this situation is very nuanced with regard to the implicated policies, and I don't know if there are any strong policy violations, let alone one justifying community action or sanction, but at the very least (and beyond the merest shadow of a doubt) this is a very bad look, {{U|Chetsford}}. Given the timing and nature of your involvement in the younger Mellon's article, and how you characterized it during your deletion efforts, it is pretty hard to swallow that your creation of the elder Mellon's article is utterly unrelated. And your extended zig-zagging and evasive back-and-forth with {{u|Boynamedsue}} above comes off as so disingenuous, passive-aggressive, and gamesmanship-like, that I have a hard time characterizing it as anything other than an attempt to gaslight. Not for one second do I genuinely believe that your involvement in the earlier article and the editorial disputes concerning it had no impact or involvement in your decision to create the article on the grandfather and then leverage his Nazi affiliation back into the article on the grandson. I believe in AGF, but what you are asking from us there would require something closer to willful suspension of disbelief. {{pb}}So, did you violate policy in any of this? Probably not: I think you are likely safe in a policy grey zone here. But this behaviour is more than a little attackpage-adjacent, and this sort of thing could easily lead to people perceiving you as capable of making editorial decisions for very petty reasons. Honestly, as at least one other editor here has suggested, I'd seriously consider taking a step back from the conspiracy-theory subject matter for a hot minute, as we sometimes see this kind burn-out over-reaction from editors working to fight misinformation in that area. And look, I get it. If this really is related to the recent cluster of disputes over UFO "whistelblowers", know that I looked in on those matters last month and was blown away by the ultra high density nonsense that was being peddled. But if this is the kind of tactic you are going to bring to bear against the "True Believers" in those disputes, you are currently not in the right mindset for that kind of editorial work and will be more of a hindrance than a help to the process of pushing back against the crankery. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{xt|"to create the article on the Nazi grandfather and then leverage his Nazi affiliation back into the article on the grandson"}} That never happened. For your edification, I explain the correct sequence of events here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1290314133], in one of the numerous other noticeboard board and Talk page accusations with which the OP is tying me down (as did his now-departed predecessors in this campaign).
But, though your comment is factually incorrect, it does underscore that the tactic of flooding the zone with creatively ginned-up noticeboard filings — as a kind of heckler's veto — is effective to the extent that it occupies editors time on noticeboards, and keeps them away from policing the insertion of hoax flying saucer content into our encyclopedia (e.g. Chris Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290146236]). Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The exact chronology of when you created the moments-apart article on the older Mellon and when you introduced his Nazi links into his grandson's article is entirely incidental, as I think you very much know. The point is that you undertook both actions about a month after being thwarted in deleting the article on the grandson, as part of the broader fight on the UFO content. As with your responses to other inquiries above about the timing of your actions and their apparent motive, this feels like a willful attempt at muddying the waters and is very much not helping your case. It feels like you think if you throw up enough corrections on minor, irrelevant points and pedantic wikilawyering defenses, you can run out the clock. But it's extremely obvious what you did here, and why. So just don't do it again? Nobody is suggesting sanctions against you, so these rhetorical ploys are pointless, and the more you treat us like idiots and try to exhaust scrutiny, the more people are going to remember you for this episode--and less because the original activity was super egregious (though it did obviously demonstrate poor judgment) and more because of the cageyness. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{xt|"the more you treat us like idiots and try to exhaust scrutiny"}} Whoa. Is that necessary? {{xt|"a month after being thwarted in deleting the article on the grandson"}} You continue to play very fast and loose with the facts of this case, and I'm sorry to call you out on these errors but since they're false accusations you're making against me I feel an indulgence to do so. No, I was not {{xt|"thwarted"}}. The article on the grandson was, in fact, actually deleted by decision of the community at AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Mellon]. VPP then undertook significant research and determined he could resurrect it. He contacted me to ask my input and I stated I had no objection to him recreating it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1289168214]. So, no, no one was {{xt|"thwarted"}}. Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I am aware of those facts as the OP laid them out very clearly in the first few lines of their complaint. But choice of wording aside, you surely understand why you are getting pushback on the fact that you have tried here to frame your actions regarding the article and content concerning the grandfather as purely coincidental and unrelated to the earlier disputes, when there's just so much context and clear indication that is not the case? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What I understand is that two editors have claimed Matthew T. Mellon is a not notable attack page. But that, for some inexplicable reason, no one has nominated it for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Well, I for one am not convinced it isn't notable. In fact, when I looked at it, my take was that it was an edge case, but may very well pass GNG. That's not the concern for me. The concern is the backdrop for your decision to make that article and the injection of the Nazi element into another article where it didn't belong, in apparent furtherance of a contest of wills that you were having over that article and related subject matter. You truly don't understand why so many community members see that as a little shady, or at best a poor exercise of judgment? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would strongly agree that Chetsford needs to step back from woo-adjacent topics. To argue that Christopher Mellon (sourceable from the Guardian + NYC alone) does not get WP:SIGCOV in RS, yet then to create Matthew T. Mellon based on 3 century old news reports is a worrying example of doublethink. An editor who pretends not to understand questions then finally throws around accusations of conspiracism to those who suggest three of their actions are linked, is becoming a time sink.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Chetsford can still be useful. I don't think they deserve a topic ban, but of course restrictions can be made about their edits, i.e. you have to clearly spell out the rules they have to abide by. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Chetsford's handling of the situation makes me uncomfortable. Take a contrary example. Henry Thynne, 6th Marquess of Bath was, among other things, famous for his collection of paintings by Adolf Hitler. This is well-known and undisputed. We don't mention this fact in Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, probably because no source has identified any relevant connection between the father's beliefs and the son's biography, to say nothing of any of the grandsons, including the current marquess. If I'm being uncharitable, it looks like an attempt to poison the well. At best, it's undue. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Xt|"Chetsford's handling of the situation makes me uncomfortable."}} Mackensen -- can I ask you to elaborate a bit on what, specifically, makes you uncomfortable? I inserted five sentences of content into a 2,000 word article (three sentences of which, involving Matthew Mellon's scholarly work, doesn't even seem to have scandalized anyone). Twenty-four minutes later that edit was reverted. A Talk page discussion ensued. If you can be more specific about which part of that creates discomfort for you I can try to be more attentive to errors moving forward. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is an unserious reply that makes me question your judgement further. You should consider stepping away from this topic altogether. Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Chetsford: I've always been a fan of your RfC closes and have appreciated you often being a voice of reason in discussions where many other users were being less reasonable. Here, though, I have to agree with Mackensen that your judgment is clouded. I understand that you're in a shitty situation with this whole UFO debacle, but I would expect any admin or otherwise experienced user to understand why the content you added is problematic. More importantly, I'd expect you to understand it, because I've never had any association of you as someone who doesn't know up from down when it comes to BLPs. Comments like the above don't change that overall impression, but do make me think you're getting too deep into this controversy. At the risk of stating the obvious, BLPs are a contentious topic area, and you're currently on a trajectory where that would come into play, I think. So I join Mackensen in encouraging you to step back from UFO-related BLPs. Whatever edits you want to make here, if they're worth making, someone else will make them sooner or later. If no one else makes them, maybe they weren't worth making. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously I'll abide by any sense of the community, and I appreciate you laying out this case so well. I am deeply uncomfortable, however, with WP succumbing to a heckler's veto, which is what has occurred. There have been wave after wave of IP and freshly minted editors who have very overtly coordinated off WP with the stated intent of getting "Chetsford banned" because they have been led to believe by their leaders that I am uniquely trying to suppress the truth about flying saucers. This is the seventh noticeboard or Talk page discussion in two weeks that have been opened about me. It started when I attempted to police the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia (and which continues to be firehosed into it; see my aforementioned example of just yesterday in which the OP inserted the claim that Christopher Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290146236]).
While I am happy to respond to good faith noticeboard discussions, by any good faith reading this one was ginned-up from the simplest of content disputes: two sentences of a BLP edge case that was reverted by another editor and then immediately moved to Talk page discussion. Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles like this happen by their dozens daily on WP and no reasonable editor would ever deign to bring it to ANI.
The flying saucer community is, frankly, less organized than other cultic groups. Seeing how this played out makes me deeply concerned for our editors working in adjacent areas if simply using a bevy of IP and battleground editors to create enough noise and sparks is all it takes to sideline the lucid and open fringe areas to guru-directed content. Chetsford (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree. If you did not edit-war about violating WP:BLP, it is not much of a transgression. Occasional mistakes are allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Chetsford, I trust much of your characterization of the situation you have been dealing with, and indeed have myself seen a recent glut in misinformation and conspiracy theory content pushing concerning UFOs myself, even though I don't actively edit or concern myself with this area. So genuinely, I'm sorry you're having to deal with that, and thank you for your work in trying to keep some of the more concerning of this content out of article space. But the issue in the present moment is that the immediate concern is not 'ginned-up'; you really did do a problematic thing, and it involves content that is only tangentially related to the UFO area, which underscores just how much these bad-faith actors have gotten under your skin with their campaign, thereby compromising your approach. You're not presently talking to those SPAs, but rather your fellow WP:HERE community members, and there's a clear consensus that a backdoor assault on a BLP subject is not the right way to try to counterbalance the efforts of a bunch of credulous nits to lionize that same subject. Indeed, the conspiracy theory prone minds feed on and recruit off of that sort of thing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Even within this very thread there is disagreement about whether biographical information about a relative is permitted in a BLP. There was no brightline BLP violation, no 3RR, not even a 1RR. It was the most mild and routine of content disagreements being reasonably discussed at a Talk page. In no circumstance would this ever be brought to ANI - particularly from an OP with a documented history of battleground behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290326534]. So we have an extremely unusual ANI filing set against the backdrop of an off-WP campaign to create as much sparks as possible for the explicitly stated purpose of having editors who are policing the insertion of hoax content "banned". Frankly, the very existence of this thread transgresses the UCC. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, personally I have been at pains to be clear that there isn't a brightline violation here. But you're an experienced community member and an admin: you know as well as anyone that these issues are not always as cut and dry as whether someone can make a case for you violating 3RR or a specific piece of verbiage from WP:BLP. The absence of those things does not mean that important principles are mot at stake. IMO, these people have you so twisted up from their harassment that they are now effectively weaponizing you against yourself. And I think you'll see that once you have some distance from this situation. I'm going to leave it at that, because clearly I am not convincing you of anything, so I'll have to hope someone else does. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Re including the sins of the grandfather, a point missed above is that a reliable source would have to describe how that stain influenced the life of the article subject. The grandfather has an article, so pile the muck on him in that article. Do not use another article to list the grandfather's problems (WP:COATRACK). Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There are number of different things going on here, and I'll try and summarise:

Is Chetsford being hassled by UFO-supporting editors? Unquestionably.

Has Chetsford handled himself okay with disputes from this group? Yes, although his level of humour and sarcasm might not be to everyone's taste.

Is the content dispute at question (the locus of which is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290142756 this edit]) a serious policy violation? Probably not, though it's not necessarily a good idea. I could go to Prince Harry and write "Harry's great-great uncle, Edward VIII, was a Nazi sympathizerhttps://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/historians-believe-the-duke-of-windsor-actively-collaborated-with-the-nazis-during-the-second-world-war-1.6635225https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a41888338/british-royal-family-nazi-relationship-history/" and then argue it doesn't meet the letter of WP:BLP because 1. The sources (just about) link Harry, Edward and Hitler, 2. Edward and Hitler aren't living people and 3. Harry isn't really the sort of "low profile" person BLP was specifically designed to protect. However, it's a bit of a dick move and common sense says I probably shouldn't do it, regardless of how many policies I can throw at the argument. So to summarise, I think Chetsford ought to have expected blowback and disruption from making those edits, no matter how on the merits he might have felt on making them, as being right isn't enough.

Should admins be held to higher standards when editing? Absolutely. As an admin, not only do you have to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair, and admins making possible dick moves isn't a good idea.

Are there any sanctions necessary? Not really, I think the most appropriate sanction towards Chetsford is [https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=monty+python+now+don%27t+do+it+again this]. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I saw you add that to a discussion between the two editors involved. You are aware that when someone is upset about another editor, it rarely helps when a fellow admin comes along to post a joke "official" closure which doesn't seem to take the upset editor serious at all? It feels like closing ranks among admins, and mocking the other editor. It really is not the type of behaviour an admin should demonstrate. Fram (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with everything @Ritchie333 just said. JFHJr (㊟) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|While pretty much everyone, including Chetsford, agrees that Chetsford's actions were less than ideal, there is a clear consensus against a topic ban or page block at this time. There was mention of potential sanctions for VPP, comments were leaning against but there wasn't enough discussion for there to be a consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

It is clear from the above comments by Chetsford that they will not admit to having done something wrong in attempting to insert negative information about someone’s grandfather on their BLP, using sources completely unrelated to the BLP subject—a BLP that Chetsford previously nominated for deletion. A literal reading of this discussion would suggest that Chetsford doesn’t understand Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and biographies of living people, but I believe that Chetsford actually totally understands these policies and is not being honest about it in this discussion. That’s too bad, but absent any evidence of Chetsford messing with other biographies besides Christopher Mellon's, I think that a topic-ban from that article should be enough to avoid further disruption. If other editors believe that a topic ban from BLPs is necessary, I am not opposed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that Chetsford needs to have clearly spelled out "rules of engagement". I oppose a topic ban from that article, since a six-month page block would do the job. They may be blocked from its talk page as well. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comments Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Chetsford started a discussion at {{slink|Talk:Christopher Mellon#Should appositive descriptors be used for Matthew T. Mellon?}}, which showed strong consensus against his proposed article version. In response, Chetsford recognized the consensus in Special:Diff/1290317702. I'm not sure why this was escalated onto ANI in the first place when it would have been resolved as a content dispute. A one-time mistake is not sufficient to warrant a topic ban. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions per Ritchie333's 0847. Support one-way Iban for VPP per their recidivism in returning to pretty much the behavior that earned them a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AVery_Polite_Person&type=block one-week block] a few months ago—from the record as "Bludgeoning, edit warring, POV pushing, WP:IDHT behavior"—although perhaps this time with added sealioning (responses usually involve swathes of text verging on the bludgeoning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALuis_Elizondo#NPOV], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChristopher_Mellon#Should_appositive_descriptors_be_used_for_Matthew_T._Mellon?] (which includes gems such as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Mellon#c-Very_Polite_Person-20250513155800-Chetsford-20250513155700 "Consider youself warned"] (!!!)), and not forgetting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sol_Foundation what started it], along with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290291874&oldid=1290290989&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents lying] about Swatjester's "suggestion" that was never made. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose both TBAN and pblock. it does, looking at this, look like the insertion was problematic, admins absolutely need to be as squeaky-clean as possible, and I do agree with Snow Rise that Chetsford needs to be careful about "FRINGE burnout". That said, it doesn't appear to be a repeated/recurring thing...and this was absolutely escalated to ANI as part of the coordinated harassment campaign against Chetsford, making it fruit of the poisonous tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction for either Chetsford or VPP. While the actions of the two editors were not beyond reproach, neither of them have done anything to warrant a block/ban. There's also no indication that VPP is going to hound or otherwise harrass Chetsford, making the IBAN unnecessary. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral I am happy to adhere to the sense of the community in this, as in all things. Chetsford (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Not certain if this is the right solution or not, so not !voting for the moment, but it seems to me that his replies to VPP and to the situation are often deliberately disingenious, with e.g. the false dilemma and unfair comparison from this post from today[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1290336359], where he is basically equating describing someone's current employer as "far right" (a logical description, where someone works and what type of company that is is relevant to the person) to describing someone's grandfather as a nazi supporter (even though there is no reason to have this background in the article for the grandson, it isn't relevant for that article), and declaring that "It seems we either need to generally accept the use of appositive descriptors and restrictive clauses or have a guideline against them." If that is their takeway, after the serious pusback they got at the Mellon article, then that is seriously questionable behaviour, which seems to be intended to rile up VPP or to get their own way no matter what. Fram (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - A single edit which was reverted and then a talk discussion started to gauge consensus is a very long way away from the sort of behaviour which requires a topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose but... I think it's very clear that this UFOlogy dispute is reaching a boiling point. I don't think a topic ban of one editor from one article is likely to make this better. Rather I think it's about time that this issue be referred to arbitration. I don't think either Chetsford or VPP have particularly clean hands here. I think there's something a bit awful about creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article when, according to the reliable sources, he is not carrying on his grandfather's awful ideological legacy; he's just a bit of a UFO crank. But at the same time I think that there's been quite a lot of effort recently to increase the prominence of UFOlogy figures and to treat them as less fringe than they are. I don't think replacing a BLP problem with a FRINGE neutrality problem is a good solution to this. Arbitration is supposed to be the venue for long term, multi-editor, disruptive disputes. UFOlogy has become a long term, multi-editor, very disruptive dispute. Let's put the ball in that court. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with much of this, particularly the ARBCOM-time part. The WP/UFO-problem includes, I think, a fairly big off-WP part, directed at editors like for example Chetsford. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you and sorry in advance for the interjection. I just want to correct one minor point ({{xt|"creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article"}}) since it's central to this matter, was falsely presented at the outset, and has now become true by process of repetition. I'm self-collapsing it, though, as I don't want to inappropriately influence this discussion. ↓ Chetsford (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair enough. Regardless I do think the appropriate course of action here is an arbitration referral. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Collapse|1= {{xt|"creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article"}}{{pb}}I did not create the article about Matthew Mellon and then transclude that information into the Christopher Mellon article.{{pb}}I initially added a paragraph to the Family section of the Christopher Mellon article that included a couple sentences of information on his grandfather, Matthew, as Matthew did not have any existing article; that he was a professor of literature, a trustee of Colby College, and a Nazi. This was reverted and we proceeded to a brief Talk discussion. After discussion, I came to agree the revert was appropriate and my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it.{{pb}}During the process of discussion, it became clear that Matthew was unambiguously notable in his own right. It was only at that point I created the Matthew article (as I am wont to do anytime I see a notable person without an article, evidenced by the 400 articles I've created). Nothing was ever transcluded into the Christopher article from the Matthew article in relation to the content in the OP as the Matthew article didn't exist when this occurred.{{pb}}(In retrospect, I should probably have drafted the Matthew article and waited a few weeks to introduce it to mainspace so as to avoid the potential for misunderstanding among those for whom this is a very central topic.) Chetsford (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)|width=40em}}

::I'm not sure we've hit the threshold where the committee would yet take this up, but it is probably inevitable. The surge of interest in this topic, like many related conspiracy theories, seems to be broader than our corner of the web and seems unlikely to abet any time soon. I just can't imagine what might be the source of all of this trend towards misinformation, skepticism of government and deep state conspiracy theory crankery... That said, this leaves the perennial issue in such cases of who actually has a motivation to open a case request--because honestly, I don't see either of the two main parties here doing it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per much of the above. I further note that the proposer of this sanction wrote {{tq|[Chetsford] is not being honest about it in this discussion}}, which is a clear, unambiguous aspersion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm still struggling to parse through everything that is happening here. It seems clear that Chetsford has long been doing admirable work fighting in the trenches against the fringe lunatic crowd. And I'm well aware that editors who fight the fringe lunatic crowd often have a target on their backs. What is less clear is whether the OP of this thread is part of that crowd; if so, we should do something about that. (Also, my above rebuke to Fortuna notwithstanding, naming yourself 'Very Polite Person' is just asking for trouble.) But regardless of the fringe lunatic stuff, it is troubling to see an admin lob a 'guilt-by-association' grenade at a BLP subject. Yes, it was one edit. Yes, it was reverted. Yes, Chetsford is not pursuing it further. Still, the evasive responses and the evident failure to grasp why the edit was a BLP no-no would be concerning coming from any veteran editor, let alone an admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd really like you to edit out the terms "fringe lunatic" and particularly the suggestion that Very Polite Person might be a "fringe lunatic". I don't believe English is your native language, and so I am happy to assume that you don't quite appreciate the weight of those words. However, suggesting somebody belongs to a lunatic fringe without exceptionally strong evidence (and perhaps even with it) would constitute a personal attack.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, that's the first time anyone has ever suggested that English isn't my first language. If you scroll up, you'll see that it was Chetsford who described one of VPP's edits as {{tq|the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia}}. In my prior comment, I was not saying that I do or not believe VPP is part of the fringe lunatic crowd. I was acknowledging that Chetsford said it. As I've said before, it has become incredibly difficult to parse what exactly is going on here with all the finger-pointing back and forth. I don't think you are helping matters, either. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree this is a long thread, but you can't even imply somebody might be a lunatic.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{ping|Boynamedsue}} [https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/ Jimmy Wales might disagree]. See also the essay WP:CHARLATANS. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Chetsford who described one of VPP's edits as the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia.}}

::::Where was this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't know but, to spare Lepricavark from having to sludge through a million diffs, I can affirm I said there had generally been issues with the insertion of unsourced content. In a separate sentence I then noted your insertion of the claim {{xt|"[Mellon] oversaw the National Security Agency"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290146236] based on what you said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1290155942] was a source that reported he once "examined the books" of the NSA. So, technically, it was probably a WP:FAKE source ("[a source that] does not support the content") and not a non-source. Apologies for any imprecision in terminology. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as they still can't get the facts straight, and this false narrative influences oppose votes like the one from Lepricavark right above ("yes, it was one edit"). Chetsford above (in the collapsed section) and elsewhere tells us that he added the info once, got reverted, then created the article about the grandfather, and that's about it. Not only glosses this over his WP:BLUDGEONing of the talk page discussion until the overwhelming number of opposers forced him to admit that it shouldn't be included, and the ongoing discussion on the BLP talk page (see my link in my previous post) where he is using very dubious debating tactics to get support for his by now thoroughly rejected position; it also ignores completely that he reinserted the nazi claim into the Christopher Mellon article.

Timeline:

• 02.13 insertion of the Nazi claims[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290142756]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290151780] (reverted 02.41, talk page discussion started 02.42)

• 02.55 creation of the Matthew T. Mellon article
• 03.14 reinsertion of the Nazi claim[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290151780]

To present this "After discussion, I came to agree the revert was appropriate and my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it. During the process of discussion, however, it became clear that Matthew Mellon was unambiguously notable in his own right. It was at that point I created the Matthew article. Nothing was ever transcluded into the Christopher article from the Matthew article in relation to the content in the OP as the Matthew article didn't exist when this occurred." is clearly false, and I can't trust them to edit this or any related articles. Fram (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry if I wasn't clear. My comment above was in relation to the content the OP quoted. There was a separate discussion on the Talk page related to the use of appositive descriptors to which I believe you're referring. Newslinger itemized it in their comment, noting my concession to the consensus in that discussion (Special:Diff/1290317702). If I didn't reply in a way that communicated that I was referring specifically to the content quoted by the OP, I'm sorry and will endeavor to be more clear in the future. Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Claiming "my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it." when you actually reinserted the actual BLP issue just an hour later, is not being unclear. You have been pushing this "one edit" canard right from the start (""a massive amount of time and effort" Are you referring to the one edit I made?", "Within minutes of the content being introduced, VPP removed it. It was not reinserted as, by this point, the Matthew T. Mellon article was live and the extended description was, in my opinion, no longer necessary. " (which is a second falsehood, as you have argued and continue to argue that the extended description is, in fact, necessary.) "I inserted five sentences of content into a 2,000 word article (three sentences of which, involving Matthew Mellon's scholarly work, doesn't even seem to have scandalized anyone). Twenty-four minutes later that edit was reverted. A Talk page discussion ensued." "two sentences of a BLP edge case that was reverted by another editor and then immediately moved to Talk page discussion. Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles like this happen by their dozens daily on WP and no reasonable editor would ever deign to bring it to ANI." "There was no brightline BLP violation, no 3RR, not even a 1RR. It was the most mild and routine of content disagreements being reasonably discussed at a Talk page.") Every single one of these is you claiming that all that happened was insertion-reversion-discussion. This is not a one-off "unclear" statement, this is a continued attempt to create a narrative in your favour by making false claims. Fram (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I thought I'd been clear that I was referring to the content quoted by the OP in each of my comments by repeatedly saying {{xt|"in relation to the content in the OP"}} and similar, and not any separate discussions on the article's Talk related to the applicability of MOS:NOFORCELINK. Moreover, the timestamps simply don't support the claim that I created the Matthew Mellon article first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_T._Mellon&oldid=1290148817] and then inserted the content in the OP into the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435] and I don't feel I've done anything wrong in correcting that assertion when it's been made. Like I said, though, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::But Chetsford....those edits are about a half an hour apart. Litteraly nobody here except for you yourself thinks that the precise order of these two edits is dispositive of any the issues or concerns raised. It's an incredibly minor, pedantic point which doesn't imapact the overall worries that the community clearly has about your actions here. So your bringing it up over, and over, and over again feels like a huge deflection. I'd call it a smoke screen, but at this point I honestly don't know whether you are trying to convince us that this exculpates you from any blame here or convince yourself {{pb}}So please, just stop bringing this up. We are all aware of this detail: you've said it a half dozen times in this thread. The concerns of the community are not tied to the fact of the technicality of whether you added the Nazi reference to Christopher Mellon's article first, or whether you created the Mathew Mellon article first. The concerns are that you did former at all, particularly given your recent history with that article and related subject matter. So, once and for all, the record notes that you created the Mathew Mellon article after adding the Nazi-related content concerning Mathew Mellon into the Christopher Mellon article. But our concerns remain, and are not in any significant way eased by the precise chronology of these two basically contemporaneous edits. Whatever the order, this was a seriously questionable set of choices on your part. {{pb}} I mean, you are at serious risk of talking yourself into a sanction here with your WP:IDHT. This discussion would have been 1/3 its current size if you'd just been able to say "Ok, I get it, this looks bad." Now people are talking about opening an ArbCom case. And my friend, despite some hard advice from some of us, you are seriously benefiting from the Trusted Community Member ANI Discount here. Historically, ArbCom is much less laissez-faire about this kind of thing. Seriously, read the room and cut your losses. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: And you may not believe this, but I am 100% telling you this because I don't want to lose the value of your engagement with this area longterm just because Team Woo Boost dogpiled you into some very poor thinking short term. But the community also can't completely turn a blind eye to the issues raised here. Please try to understand and help us help you! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Those are very different chunks of text... Insertion and reinsertion in that context feels misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't say he reinserted the text, he reinserted the disputed BLP issue in different words, in the first (longer) edit "Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast"", in the second edit " Nazi Party supporter". Fram (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The first edit was "According to Princeton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast" though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934, Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming"." and the second was "Nazi Party supporter." The major difference I see is that in the first one its an attributed quote and in the second its in wikivoice... But its really not the same content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The problematic guilt-by-association connection between Christopher Mellon and his pro-Nazi grandpa is present in both edits. That's the issue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Neither set of text carries guilt by association. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'd like to believe that was not the intention, but my credulity doesn't stretch that far. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Saying that someone's relative was a Nazi is a textbook example of guilt by association. While I'm here, oppose sanctions, as the two edits constitute a one-time mistake (AFAIK) and everyone makes mistakes. Levivich (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think any sanction is necessary at the moment. Chetsford has stepped back from their confrontational position at the talkpage of Christopher Mellon, so I wouldn't class it as an ongoing issue. I would, however, suggest that Chetsford reflect on the way they behave on UFO-proximate threads. It's pretty baffling that someone can seemingly believe that Christopher Melon has not received WP:SIGCOV whereas his no-mark grandad did, and this smacks of editing with very strong biases that are negatively affecting their contributions. I would recommend a few weeks' voluntary break from this kind of thing for Chetsford's own good, and then a return to editing on it with a less partisan mindset. But yeah, at the minute the negative behaviour has only been mildly disruptive.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|It's pretty baffling that someone can seemingly believe that Christopher Melon has not received WP:SIGCOV whereas his no-mark grandad did}} Note that the original Christopher Mellon article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Mellon was deleted at AfD] and the {{tq|no-mark}} Matthew T. Mellon has not been nominated for deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's exceptionally baffling that AfD voted that way. Google "Christopher Mellon+Guardian" and "Christopher Mellon+NYT" and you get sigcov. Kind of illustrative of the blindspots of wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Both that AfD and the Harald Malmgren one, that latter even drawing out User:Jimbo Wales about the WP:BLP issues, were baffling. Many users trivially sourced Malmgren during the AfD, and it was ultimately trivial to source Christopher Mellon, as User:Chetsford themselves demonstrated by digging out decades old Newspaper.com sources about Mellon after I meticulously rebuilt the article from zero content. I have no idea how he didn't catch any of these on the stated WP:BEFORE. It seems unlikely. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I can't deny thats a bit puzzling... Perhaps Chetsford does need to better police their own biases if they want to avoid any sanctions in the future. I would note though that they are not the only one with an apparent blind spot, all the editors who claimed that the elder Mellon was not notable but the younger was have also brought their bias into question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::From the AfD nom: {{tq|This is legitimized through extensive REFBOMBing in which a dozen RS (e.g. Vice, The Guardian, etc.) are crammed into the article. However, on close inspection, each of these simply contain one sentence quotes from Mellon; no biographical detail or detail of any kind.}}

::::Seems a little unfair to pretend like these weren't addressed when they were from the outset. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And this is yet another reason why (in addition to the off-wiki coordination we all know is going on and the entrenchment between certain skeptical editors and certain true believers all of whom seem to want to right great wrongs) I think this would be better tabled as a basis for a referral to Arbitration regarding UFOlogy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::With the goal being what, exactly? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I do think the structure of a case would be a big improvement over all the shit-flinging. Right now if I bring up VPP's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1290159390 battleground] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ben.Gowar&diff=prev&oldid=1289030993 editing] it's just more feces in the wind, kicking it to ArbCom is kind of a reset button on that. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Precisely. Frankly it's the venue intended for long-term, multi-party, disruptive disputes. And that's what this UFOlogy business is. And, while I have my own personal skepticism of saucer people stories, I can't help but notice that there's an entrenched battleground mentality between the two parties here that I cannot ignore notwithstanding my personal sympathies. I would suspect this ends up another CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|I would suspect this (Ufology) ends up another CTOP}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Pseudoscience_and_fringe_science I thought it already was.] JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Excellent point, {{u|JoJo Anthrax}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290527601&oldid=1290407772&title=User_talk:Very_Polite_Person]. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd just like to say that the sigcov linked to the article for the older Mellon amounts to a couple of 90-year-old newspaper articles behind a pay wall. That's it. I don't feel newspaper articles from the 1930s amount to reliable sources for the purpose of notability in this or any other case. I would class them as historical documents requiring the interpretation of modern authors for us to assess their weight. I would also say that I am certain sceptics and ufo-enthusaists organise off-wiki. I hope one day proof of this emerges, linked to the users concerned, and both sides are banned forever.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tqq|I don't feel newspaper articles from the 1930s amount to reliable sources for the purpose of notability in this or any other case.}} Would they have established notability then, though? Becasue notability is not temporary. (Note also that offline sources or paywalled ones are entirely acceptable; WP:OBSCURE, WP:TRIVIAL, and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH also seem relevant). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Well, in terms of paywalled sources, they have not as yet been checked by anyone, so whether they actually do provide sigcov can be questioned until the relevant details are provided. As for the ninety-year-old sources, WP:AGEMATTERS is surely relevant, and I would suggest defunct newspapers, and even newspapers that are now reliable may not have been at the time. As the RS guideline states: {{tq|, a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source.}}. I would suggest these newspapers articles became primary sources long before the advent of wikipedia, and so no notability has ever been established and WP:NTEMP is not valid. If 90 year-old newspaper articles can give notability today, where do we draw the line? The first edition of the Times in 1821? John Harris's lexicon of 1704? The Nuremberg Chronicle? Suetonius? Herodotus? Boynamedsue (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tqq|a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source}} Whut...how is that even supposed to work? not the venue, I know, but...my mind boggles! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That sentence you quote starts with {{tq|Similarly for breaking news,}} obviously that doesn't apply here, 1930s news has never been "breaking" in a Wikipedia context, because it happened 70 years before the site was founded. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::To swerve back on to topic, this really isn't proving out the allegation that Chetsford has "very strong biases" in finding SIGCOV for Mellon Sr. Your own frustrations with the guidelines are irrelevant to that. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Seems like a bit of a red herring... In addition to sigcov from the 1920s and 1930s there is also sigcov from 1950, 1951, 1967, 1968, 1978, 1983, etc... But in general the line seems to be about a hundred years depending on the context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Deprecate Herodotus; known reputation for poor fact-checking and pro-hellenic/anti-persian bias. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You might be interested in this discussion. Ioe bidome (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|REAL_MOUSE_IRL}}So what would you say is the cutoff date for newspaper articles that provide sigcov to establish notability?

:::::::::HEB, I don't think the later sources provide sigcov. Though I would agree, if they do there is a much stronger case to retain the article.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Among the later sources I would single out Koskoff's 1978 book, Koskoff even interviews him (the latest most recent interview I can locate). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Right, having looked at that book, you are totally right. I missed that one. It would have perhaps helped if, instead of spending an hour or so being evasive about the sourcing when I asked him, Chetsford had said "actually Koskoff provides sigcov".--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose We should instead indef block every singe FRINGE UFOlogy pusher active on any of these articles. They're the problem in this topic area. Silverseren^C 01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I mean, I don't think anyone is opposed to blocking the WP:NOTHERE elements, in principle. The issue is making all of those determinations and blocks, particularly as you are dealing with an ever-revolving cast of meatpuppets. I've dealt with scenarios like Chetsford is trying to tamp down presently (which is why I was unlikely to ever support a sanction even though I think they are somewhat missing the forest for the tries on this one particular article) and the issue is that you are looking at huge (sometimes vast) numbers of low-commitment IP editors and new SPAs who will flood articles and talk pages and each make very minimal contributions, but collectively make the same policy-ignorant, emotive, and/or conspiracy theory-laden arguments arguments and EW edits again and again. {{pb}}These SPAs get recruited en masse from the most credulous corners of YouTube comments sections or Twitter threads and hurled at articles with no understanding of this project's principles or intent to engage with it beyond their immediate objective to try to enforce their preferred outcome through sheer numbers, and they often believe we are a part of (or the clueless tools of) some cabal or another. So ultimately page protection ends up being the only real means of stemming the flood of disruption, and blocks, even when you can get them, are not super effective. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking User:Chetsford here from this article. I think we have consensus. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Chetsford should have known better, and for me, that is the real issue, and from their comments here, it's not clear to me that they understand that. I think a forced break of 3 to 6 months is reasonable. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Both parties are partially correct and partially wrong. Blocking Chetsford from the article would only make sense if that would prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and Chetsford does not cause damage to the encyclopedia. Support trouting everyone including you, the reader. Polygnotus (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Digging up the past of someone's grandfather and adding it in the way that Chetford did was very sub par, but they have accepted that. Given VPP has also opposed the proposal I really think this isn't necessary at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

{{archive-bottom}}

I submit, for the drahmaboard's consideration, ongoing issues with {{userlinks|Very Polite Person}}.

• Talk:Christopher_Mellon#Leslie_Kean_labeled_UFO_enthusiast_on_Christopher_Mellon_by_User:ජපස wherein I get into a protracted dispute with the user in question over whether mentioning Leslie Kean's connections to ufology is a BLP violation worthy of severe opprobrium. Implication being it is an unsourced, contentious accusation, an implication which I call out explicitly but which is continually sidestepped by the user in favor of what I think is essentially WP:CRYBLP WP:SEALIONing. I guess the conflict is now over, but I fear we may have more because ongoing is:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#If_WP:RS_says_that_per_the_Pentagon_person_X_ran_a_program,_is_that_sufficient which seems to be the inverse of the previous argument. Now the user wants to include flattering content about a current UFO celeb that has been called into question by other sources.

Hmmm...

jps (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well, on the first you edited a WP:BLP to put unsourced content about a different WP:BLP into that article with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290429267&oldid=1290383365 this edit].

:On the second, there was a polite impasse on the article talk page whether a certain article from an otherwise sound WP:RS was a valid WP:RS at all. So, I asked for extra independent opinions on RSN, and promptly got dog piled for asking.

:In both cases I strictly followed correct protocol: try to get the unsourced WP:BLP content sourced, and get extra eyes on an unusual protracted WP:RS dispute. Was I not supposed to try and fix a WP:BLP policy violation--which I graciously tried to let you explain--or to try and figure out if that WP:RS was OK? I am starting to feel like between Christopher Mellon and Luis Elizondo that people are getting increasingly mad at me for being effective at finding sources. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:VPPs initial post at WP:RSN [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1290589316] was, in my opinion, utterly dishonest, in that it attempted to present the source in isolation, without the slightest concession towards the possibility that it might be contradicted by other sources, as they were fully aware. Add that to their later absurd claim that this had nothing to do with UFOs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1290592915], along with all the other tedious time-wasting wall-of-text repetition in that thread, and I'd say we have sufficient grounds for a topic ban from 'UFOs broadly construed' at minimum. This nonsense has gone on far too long. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::You've gotta be kidding me. The Luis Elizondo article was a total WP:BLP trainwreck until I fixed it. Christopher Mellon was a complete from zero rewrite by me that is a perfectly sound article. All I've tried to do since is make sure both are honest on WP:BLP terms. I took the challenge to unsuccesfully, it appears, add sources to The Sol Foundation. That's it. That's (as far as I'm aware) my entire spectrum of "UFO stuff". I keep all the pages I regularly bother with right on my user page -- go look. If I had any confidence Luis Elizondo wouldn't devolve into another WP:BLP nightmare I'd take it off my watchlist right now. I don't think there's anyone who has removed more content from that than anyone else. Go look at the edit history.

::All I know is that the moment I make the slightest move on either of those articles, no matter how trivial, I suddenly have half a dozen people calling for my blood/sanctions, and they get upset that I don't... I don't know, just roll over on WP:BLP? I'm not even a "UFO editor". I found three messed up articles and tried to fix them.

::It's kinda feeling like I'm targeted because I'm effective at editing/sourcing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|I'm not even a "UFO editor". I found three messed up articles and tried to fix them.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_drone_sightings&diff=prev&oldid=1263446334 You sure about that?] jps (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::VPP's assertion that 'I'm not even a "UFO editor"' is demonstrably false, given the multiple articles involving that topic they have edited. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Very%20Polite%20Person/0] See e.g. Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (now a redirect), The Sol Foundation, Sean M. Kirkpatrick, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, Garry Nolan, Project Blue Book etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, how often exactly am I even touching any of those, with some over a year old amd only a handful of articles, basically all touched as branches of my initial Luis Elizondo involvement? I added a bit of content here and there, fixed up a few BLP issues, and moved on. Sol Foundation was followed off my researching the Mellon article to source it for his extensive government history--my wheelhouse naturally. Go look at the AFC drafts--I even made two versions of the Mellon article, with and without UFOs to make sure he was notable WITHOUT UFOs (he was, trivially). Whatever all of you guys have going with these articles, I honestly don't give a shit. I did what I wanted with Mellon--sourced and wrote it. The BLP stuff is done on Elizondo.

::::Banning seems kind of pointless as I don't even really edit those spaces, I wander into them here and there (rarely) outside those two nexus articles (Elizondo and now Mellon). Both are stable/done. If my presence and effectiveness at sourcing content is so upsetting to the WP:FRINGE enthusiasts, I'm more than happy to just focus on my own science/law articles. I just wanted to get Mellon to GA because of his incredibly deep government history in the Senate and DOD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|The Luis Elizondo article was a total WP:BLP trainwreck until I fixed it.}} Not only is that absolutely false, it is a clear aspersion against the multiple good-faith editors who edited that article and did not, in fact, violate any WP policies. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This was Luis Elizondo before I first touched it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&oldid=1242115774

::::Compare to now: Luis Elizondo, and the state I've left it in for others to maintain.

::::It is impossible to say I did not improve it. There's a thread somewhere here or BPLN where uninvolved people seemed horrified at it's state when I reported it. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::VPP omits some important details here. Starting on or about 2024-08-25, VPP certainly made a great many edits to the Luis Elizondo page. Their final edit to the page during that epoch was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1246574105 this], on 2024-09-19, which included in the edit summary the false claim that an editor {{tq|restored a WP:BLP violation}}. Less than ten minutes later VPP was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AVery_Polite_Person&type=blocked blocked for one-week] for, among other things, POV-pushing in this topic area. Shortly afterward, as evidenced on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&action=history&offset=&limit=500 the page's history], several editors began actively editing the article, resulting in a significant amount of newly added WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE content being removed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|ජපස}} I am deeply concerned that the discussion on whether Leslie Kane (BLP) can be described as a "UFO-enthusiast" has been given as evidence of some kind of problem in VPP's editing. It is entirely appropriate to request for sourcing for a BLP. JPS seemed to be arguing for a while that their descriptor of a BLP subject did not require sourcing as it was common knowledge, and then asking VPP to provide them with a source for their own edit! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1290592914&oldid=1290592661] When a source appeared, YPP immediately accepted it. I can't fathom what JPS is doing here, all they needed to do was add a source to the page and yet instead they chose to argue for an hour and only then source the claim they wished to see in the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290590577&oldid=1290590024] Come on JPS, you know that when someone challenges an edit, especially when it is with a cn tag, the first thing you do is source it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Are you "deeply" concerned? Perhaps you can explain what is so deep about that concern? I never argued that the descriptor {{tq|did not require sourcing as it was common knowledge}}. I argued that it was already sourced with the sources already present both in the article in question and in the linked article. The CN tag went up quite a bit after the talkpage discussion was started. Check the timestamps. jps (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The talkpage discussion started with a discussion between Chetsford and VPP, after which VPP added a citation needed tag at 01:59 on the 15th of May [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290587443&oldid=1290498015]. Chetsford had proposed some sources that he thought might support your edit, and VPP was not entirely sure whether they were enough to support the claim. This is absolutely fine from both users as it's not up to VPP to support your edits for you. Chetsford and VPP then talked some more, but no source supporting the quote was added. You joined the discussion at 18:13 on the 15th and made 8 more very argumentative posts before adding the source that justified your edit. In one of those edits you accused VPP of lying, because he did not accept that WP:5P was a justification for adding the word "UFO enthusiast" to a BLP (it isn't).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1290587216&oldid=1290587049]. Your debating with him looked confrontational and was certainly did nothing to reduce the amount of time spent on the debate. If it had been me, I would have added the source, put the direct quote on the talkpage and simply said "it's what the source says, we follow the sources." To me that discussion looks like a failure on the part of two users to discuss in a constructive way, though only one was aggressive and it was not the one who might have the excuse of inexperience.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In my estimation, you are free to argue that WP:5P it not justification, but I also think that in this pluralistic community of Wikipedians, you are also tasked to accept that I am also a member of the community and am allowed to hold the alternate opinion wherein I like to quote WP:5P. I'm fine that you would have taken a different approach in the conversation, but I don't think that making a moral judgement and implying deep consternation with my approach (which I see as basically being like, "Hey, this is best for the reader, doncha think?") is somehow inimical to WP:ENC or whatever. jps (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Support the proposed topic ban as one of the people who had to waste their time correcting VPP's extremely misleading statements in the RSN thread. - MrOllie (talk)

:*: And another thing that needs correction. Despite the claims in the comment above mine, this is definately not VPP's first time on the fringe: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_102#Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act,_NPOV,_FRINGE_and_UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:It's an article about a proposed law, that I helped make and prune, and didn't even make a fuss when it got redirected away. I'm incredibly open about what I do--look at my user page. I write articles about topics related to national security, science, classification of data and related doctrines, and laws related to the same. Like I said, the weird hostility I get is just... weird. For adding source and insisting on people sticking tightly to WP:BLP?

:*:Is there any issue with my editing on Christopher Mellon; if so--what? Or that law article? Or is this all down to my not letting people steamroll the Luis Elizondo page on WP:BLP terms? The drones one was a hot article at the time, like the stupid DOGE one for government, and I helped on both--again, both in my natural interests. I don't list either on my page because I dipped in for a few weeks and dipped back out. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, but reading that Fringe noticeboard thread, it is not VPP who comes over badly.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support. Hopefully with reassurance that "broadly construed" includes the current RSN thread, lest the same argument come up again. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support Also that and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AVery+Polite+Person that]. Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support I'm deeply unimpressed by the RSN discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just the note I did "look into" the situation before pressing the post button. This isn't about the rights or wrong of the topic area I would hope editors wouldn't confuse the two, but the concerns I have coming from the RSN discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever curious hang ups some of you have about all this WP:FRINGE stuff, I think I'm done with the walled garden some of you want to curate, to whatever ends. I don't care. You guys are way too intense for no obvious reason. Both Mellon, Elizondo and RSN are off my watch list. I'll be busy building science/law/some history articles mainly. Field propulsion and Abigail Becker and Born secret and Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station hopefully to GA soon. If anyone wants to help, I've got a list of articles I'm focusing on, on my user page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - I admire VPP’s passion for the subjects his detractors are so determined to silence him on, and find it fascinating how determined they are. I’ve been around a long time on Wikipedia, and have seen a shift in the last 8 years on the subject in the worldwide media, and in the U.S. Congress. This shift appears to have a serious effect. It’s my feeling that VPP provides a welcome balance here at the ‘pedia, and I hope others casting !votes here will look a bit into the history before they hit their publish button. Please note that although I created the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program article way back in 2017 using mainstream reliable sources, and put some effort into the Elizondo article’s BLP issues, I consider myself a neutralist on the subject, have many other interests on the Wiki, and find reverting vandals much more rewarding than getting into the weeds on this topic. If VPP has had enough, we should take them at their word and close this with no action, as I see it. Cheers and best wishes to all! Jusdafax (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Nobody is trying to silence VPP. If they wanted this to go better, especially on RSN, they could have chosen to be more honest in describing the dispute. It would also be helpful for them to use some of that "determination" to follow the guidelines about trying to find honest consensus instead of throwing out constant references to policies along with walls of text to bludgeon other editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• 'Refer to ArbCom Let ArbCom (whose members I assume are neither pro nor anti-UFOs) analyse the situation from a non-partisan POV. Some1 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :ArbCom only deals with issues the community cannot resolve. As of now, we are attempting to resolve it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Pseudoscience_and_fringe_science ArbCom already has "analyse(d) the situation."] JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support the proposed topic ban - VPP's obvious WP:OWNership and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior is wasting the time of experienced editors. Talk about {{tq|intense}}, look through the history at Christopher Mellon with their barrage of edits featuring needlessly aggressive edit summaries and relentless Talk page argumentation that is classic WP:CRYBLP. And this same behavior continues at Luis Elizondo, The Sol Foundation, etc. I think TBAN guardrails would help relieve what has become an ongoing problem. - LuckyLouie (talk)

:I should add that VPP’s promise that they will give up editing these articles isn’t reassuring. They made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Very_Polite_Person&diff=prev&oldid=1246601493 similar empty promises after they were blocked the last time] for edit warring and disruption at UFO activist Luis Elizondo BLP, but after a while their disruption resumed with renewed vigor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would not have supported a topic ban prior to the situation at WP:RS/N today where it seemed like VPP was rather intentionally leaving out important information in order to get the response they wanted. This UFO silliness is becoming a real time suck and VPP's tendency to elide even that it is UFO silliness is honestly making it worse. As such reluctant support for a topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose based on further reading of the expanded discussionNeutralWeak OpposeReluctant Support with preference for a Threshold Banbased on comment by JoJoAnthrax, I am again modifying my !vote, this time to Neutral.As someone else pointed out, VPP said they intend to approach these articles with a lighter touch. Therefore, I change my opinion here to oppose. Any ban is unnecessary based on their commitment to proceed with greater caution and prohibiting them from this (or any) topic is no longer necessary in light of that statement. No editor should be banned from anywhere except in the most drastic circumstances which this does not seem to be. (The OP's move for a TBAN was well-presented and done in GF as it was made prior to this new information from VPP.) (the threshold being completion of all challenges in the WP:ADVENTURE at which time the ban will automatically rescind with no further action required by VPP), noting Jusdafax's comment that VPP brings both an apparent awareness of sources on this topic, as well as a fresh perspective we should welcome.
  That said, aside from the issues identified in the OP, there have been instances of insertion of rather fanciful claims into UFO articles that -- generously -- ride the edge of being WP:FAKE sourcing (sources that do not support the content inserted). At a surface level, these may appear to be nitpicking over wording. However, there is a chronic issue with UFO editors who sometimes unintentionally aggrandize UFO articles to align them with the stories of celebrity UFO mythmakers through subtle shifts in phrasing. A couple non-exhaustive examples:

1. VPP inserted into the Christopher Mellon article the claim that Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1290155942] When I asked him for a source for this extraordinary claim, he pointed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1290155942] to a source that said Mellon once "examined the books" of the NSA.
2. After the Mellon article was deleted at AfD he did yeoman's work in rebuilding it, and even kindly asked me (as AfD nom) if I objected to its recreation; I said I did not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1289168214]. But some wording advanced more phrases aligned with the UFO mythos than reality (e.g. Mellon's "tenure in the Senate" -- Mellon was never in the Senate -- which I corrected here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290023529] / This was sourced to this [https://archive.org/details/unconventionalwa0000marq/page/124/mode/2up?q=mellon] which never referred to his "tenure in the Senate" a phrase logically reserved for senators, and not employees of senators).

:Under no circumstance should these warrant a ban, as they can each be resolved through Talk discussion. The problem that arises is that, when editors engage in discussion threads with VPP, they are sometimes met with a broadside of WP:BATTLEGROUND responses which disinclines such discussion, to wit: {{Xt|"accept... the rejection of your position"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1290314147], {{xt|""admit you lost""}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1290159390], {{xt|""You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sol_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1288257432], {{xt|"Do you agree to my terms?"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sol_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1288364237], etc. These all come a few weeks after a block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Very_Polite_Person&diff=prev&oldid=1246575381] over behavioral issues.
A threshold ban is the least onerous ban possible and provides a non-punitive opportunity for an editor to enhance the impact of his contributions, without meaningfully restricting his access to the project (which is something we should avoid in all but the most dire situations). Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC); edited 04:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 07:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::I like this proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for all of the above diffs. TarnishedPath^talk 02:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from UFOs broadly construed. Enough is enough. VPP's numerous behavioral issues in this topic area, as presented by several editors above and which do not seem to be recognized by VPP (even after their week-long block for the same issues), have become far too disruptive. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Having read both the Chetsford and RSN discussions, all I can see is SEALION. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I'll AGF and take their word that they are walking away from this shitshow. I certainly would. Seems like to me this is punitive, rather than preventive. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per my above, specifically: their recidivism in returning to pretty much the behavior that earned them a one-week block a few months ago—from the record as "Bludgeoning, edit warring, POV pushing, WP:IDHT behavior"—although with added faux-civility and sealioning (responses usually involve swathes of text verging on the bludgeoning: [153], [154] (which includes gems such as ""Consider youself warned" (!!!)), and not forgetting what started it, along with lying about Swatjester's "suggestion" that was never made. They're a classic example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Also noting that they have now been notified that they're editing a C-TOP. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose JPS added unsourced content to a BLP, a discussion occurred about the content, JPS added a source and YPP accepted it. No revert was made. Why on earth is this here?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, oppose per BNS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Boynamedsue I did not add unsourced content to a BLP. Please strike that accusation as it is plainly incorrect. jps (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If an addition does not have a clearly identifiable source it is unsourced, this is especially true of BLP.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::How did you determine it was not clearly identifiable? Did you try to identify the source yourself? Do you have a diff where I refused to identify a source? jps (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. There are some issues here, but I'm more than a little worried that this is being blown out of proportion by the larger context of this thread. I would have a hard time justifying that, on the basis of behaviour that is roughly equivalent in terms of overall questionability, almost all of us were unwilling to sanction an established user to even the extent of a temporary page ban, but we will nevertheless give the OP an indefinite topic ban from the entire area. And looking at one of the discussions that jps references, I have to say that I am nearly as unimpressed with their approach as I am VPP's. Citing WP:5P in response to a request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content feels frankly lazy and obstructive, considering that namespace contains no policy language itself but is rather just a listing of the pillars. {{pb}}On the other hand {{u|Very Polite Person}}, I also can see why jps didn't exactly feel like bending over backwards to accommodate a heavy conversation with you on the merits. First off, there was no need to cite their name in thread title and come at them so hot in that discussion. That is never the right way to set the tone for resolving editorial differences of opinion. And, more to the core issues here, that you needed any explanation for why Kean's status as someone who is largely notable for her connection to the topic of UFOs when discussing her involvement with matters pertaining to UFOs feels willfully obtuse and is indeed an indication that you are capable of bringing disruption to this area. For the record, the two most relevant policies that come to my mind in answer to your query of jps are WP:WEIGHT and, not altogether unironically, WP:OBVIOUS. But there must be a dozen other policy pages or sections that might have been cited there. {{pb}} I also think there is something to the concerns that have been raised here about how you frame your level of engagement with this topic. Considering your time on the project, you have pretty substantial contributions to this area. You may not perceive it as a core interest that brought you to editing on Wikipedia, but I think you are being disingenuous when you claim that you don't understand why your interest in the subject matter is being framed as it is. If you're planning on moving away from these articles as you say, I think that will be helpful in establishing your bona fides as an editor with broader interests, but as it stands, I don't think anyone erred in how they described your contributions. That said, I don't see enough in terms issues here to justify topic banning you at present. But it wouldn't take many more situations like that Kean discussion for me to reconsider that. And that is worth bearing in mind when you consider I am one of a minority opposing the TBAN as it stands. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Citing WP:5P in response to a request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content feels frankly lazy and obstructive, considering that namespace contains no policy language itself but is rather just a listing of the pillars.}} That is a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you could strike it. Calling my actions "lazy and obstructive" is a pretty low blow. The five pillars enjoys a long history of being referred to as rationale for what we do when we try to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't want the five pillars referred to in discussions that ask people to justify their actions with policy, feel free to gather consensus for such a position at the village pump. But we are tasked with tolerating differences here without trying to label these differences with these kinds of bad faith assumptions. jps (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I won't be striking anything, and bluntly, your propensity to attach the allegation of "WP:personal attack" or "WP:aspersion" to any observation that your own conduct in this dispute was suboptimal or problematic, even when it comes from a respondent community member uninvolved in the underlying dispute, is now getting into outright WP:BATTLEGROUND territory.{{pb}} Nor have you engaged with the point being raised for you in good faith: Of course the five pillars as individual policies have vast amounts of longstanding community support. That is not in dispute by anyone here, nor does your response address the actual substance of the point I very clearly detailed: citing WP:5P the namespace to an editor you are in a content/sourcing dispute with is absolutely useless, as that space is merely a collection of links to the pillars and contains no policy language itself. How was VPP to possibly know which of the literally hundreds of very important policy principles found within those five collectively massive policies you were asserting against them? {{pb}}I'm sorry, but your argument on this point is absolutely ludicrous, and if you honestly are trying to assert that citing 5P was a sufficient argument to support your point in that (or any) detailed content dispute, I am forced to judge only one of two things can be going on here: 1) you are being deeply disingenuous (and yes, obstructive) about knowing how lackluster that response was, or 2) there are serious competency issues in how you approach citing policy and community consensus in editorial disputes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How did you determine that I was in a content or sourcing dispute? I thought it was clear in the conversation that we had a consensus point that Leslie Kean was involved with UFO discourse. The question came back: "What policy supports your position?" My interpretation. You are free to have another. But what you are basically claiming is that this interpretation I am offering right now is so incorrect that it does not deserve a good faith acceptance for it. Instead, I am "lazy and obstructive". Civil discourse is in the eye of the beholder and I, frankly, took offense to your characterization of my actions. Like it or lump it, that's how I see it. jps (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, fair enough. But I do think you are taking the criticism harder than you should. For starters, just because I describe a particular decision or action in a certain way should not be taken as a criticism of your character or fitness as an editor generally. There's a reason why I spent much more time criticizing VPP and why I expressly indicated that I could easily see myself changing my position and supporting a TBAN for them if they continue down their current path on this topic--and had no inclination to say anything similar about you. In fact, I went out of my way to speculate that it was actions on VPP's part that got you in a posture to be terse to begin with. Nothing I said was meant to imply that you are the source of the issues in this dispute. {{pb}}But I still do have to judge VPP's conduct, and whether it justifies community response, in the light of the broader context. And if I think that another party's approach to the situation even partially explains or ameliorates how VPP, as the party being brought here for oversight, approached that situation, it's necessary to say how. And in my opinion, while VPP set the stage for that locking of horns, there is some blame to spread around in terms of the poor communication. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I apologize if my taking this as a criticism of my character went against your intentions. I guess I was feeling frustrated generally and felt that not only was it confounding to deal with the conflict when it happened but now I was being told that I handled the whole thing poorly made me feel a bit like I was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't sort of scenario. This is not an unfamiliar space for me to be in at Wikipedia and I find that if I just ignore it, sometimes I miss an opportunity to learn. I will say that I have learned from our interaction even if I am not sure I could quite see the way to interact the way you and Boynamedsue seem to be recommending I interact. I will keep trying, though! jps (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you jps: for what it's worth, I get where you are coming from--and specifically, having dealt with similar situations where conspiracy theory credulous meatpuppets, mobilized on an external social media platform, have been flooding a topic area, I get how that situation wears down one's patience for going all in on being pro forma and dotting every 'i'. To be clear, I'm not saying I have any reason to believe that VPP is a part of that coordinated campaign, but the impacts on process and editor patience/time for the niceties always eventually seeps out into the broader discussion, when that kind of mass bombardment is taking place.{{pb}} I do think that, as this thread as a whole demonstrates, it's necessary to be on guard against letting our own individual communications be degraded as we attempt to keep up with the amount of response necessitated by such a game of whack-a-mole. The unfortunate reality is that working in restraining policy-noncompliant woo boosterism often requires an extraordinary level of patience and forbearance. There's an old saying: kill them with kindness. I think we can adapt that idiom for anti-fringe work on this project: kill them with competence. Meaning, the more the bad faith actors swarm and put us under pressure to deal with their numbers, obstinacy, and lack of understanding of this project's rules and methods, the more meticulous we should be in citing and following those same rules, as this will (eventually, and not without considerable effort, I recognize) undercut their efforts, and maybe even genuinely educate a few of them.{{pb}} But I understand that is sometimes easier said than done--especially when the saying is done after the fact, by someone looking at the issue with the benefit of hindsight and not exhausted by recent interactions with the SPAs and gamesmanship. In any event, I'm glad for the opportunity to clarify that I didn't mean to come off as stridently critical of you personally, and I appreciate you taking my reassurances as to that in the spirit they were intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{U|Snow Rise}}, you better watch it with the death threats. We've got some very literal-minded editors around here. EEng 23:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is not remotely a personal attack. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also agree it is not a personal attack, but rather an astute observation. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment With respect to {{tq|VPP said they intend to approach these articles with a lighter touch}} (from {{yo|Chetsford}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290798636 above]) and {{tq|If you're planning on moving away from these articles as you (VPP) say}} (from {{yo|Snow Rise}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290836894 above]), perhaps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Very_Polite_Person&diff=prev&oldid=1246601493 this] comment by VPP following their September 2024 block is worth a read. The point being that similar promises were previously made by VPP (specifically, {{tq|can I ask now again for unblock if I stay off from editing the page in question and just discuss on talk?}}), and yet here we are because VPP has repeatedly displayed the same disruptive behaviors in the same topic area that led to their block. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Comment: have people participating in the discussion read the sources in the article? VPP rewrote it and so they presumably have, and also JPS cites the sources, but I feel like some folks have read only the discussion.

Above, {{u|Boynamedsue}} says "{{tq|JPS added unsourced content}}", {{u|Zanahary}} opposes sanctions on the same grounds, and {{u|Snow Rise}} comments on "{{tq|request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content}}".

In the talk page discussion, VPP writes: "{{tq|I encourage someone to properly source the claim lest any editor can immediately remove it with the full authority of WP:BLP behind them.}}" They repeatedly bring up the idea that it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1290587216&diff=1290587361 "unsourced"] to described Kean as a "UFO enthusiast" or "UFO proponent". Since VPP has almost certainly read the sources cited at the end of the sentence as the article's primary author, then they know how those sources describe Kean:

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20210706204449/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously "Leslie Kean, an independent investigative journalist and a novice U.F.O. researcher"],
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20210706204449/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously "By 2017, Kean was the author of a best-selling U.F.O. book and was known for what she has termed, borrowing from the political scientist Alexander Wendt, a “militantly agnostic” approach to the phenomenon."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20210706204449/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously "Kean is certain that U.F.O.s are real. Everything else—what they are, why they’re here, why they never alight on the White House lawn—is speculation."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20210706204449/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously "In the decades after the Second World War, about half of all Americans, including many in power, accepted U.F.O.s as a matter of course. Kean sees herself as a custodian of this lost history."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20210706204449/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously "Kean’s work from this period, mostly published on the Huffington Post, shows signs of agitation and evangelism."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20210706204449/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously "Since 2017, Kean has covered the U.F.O. beat for the Times,"]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230721001904/https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ "Leslie Kean, the journalist who has long promoted UFO theories in the press, lobbied for UFO transparency, and has a history of being friendly with TTSA."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230721001904/https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ "Ironically, Grusch, when seeking to go public with his UFO claims (which he also broadcast on NewsNation), says his interest in UFOs was sparked by that first New York Times article co-written by Kean—creating a seemingly self-reinforcing circle of misinformation and undocumented assertions."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230721001904/https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ "Kean was one of the few cheerleaders blessing TTSA with publicity when it launched in October 2017, including a puff piece in HuffPost on TTSA ushering in potential “world-changing technology”—published a day before DeLonge’s TTSA went public."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230721001904/https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ "Well before all her 2017 UFO puffery, Kean first hailed in HuffPost and at UFO conferences as arguably the best UAP proof yet a UFO video released by Chilean government officials that turned out to be a fly buzzing too close to a camera lens."]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230721001904/https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ 'No matter the weirdness afoot at Skinwalker Ranch, Leslie Kean has admitted to knowing full well the strange scope of the Pentagon program but chose not to reveal it. “The angle I was taking in my reporting was to try get credibility for the subject,” she proclaimed in a Showtime documentary, U.F.O. As Kean told this reporter, “You’ve got to roll out this information in stages. People have to acclimate to this very gradually.”']
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20230721001904/https://washingtonspectator.org/spaceship-of-fools/ "He and Kean have garnered book contracts, an HBO biopic, and a new National Geographic series lionizing them both as crusading truth-tellers."]

And here are quotes from the source that was added in response to VPP's mid-sentence {{tl|fact}} tag:

• [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/leslie-kean-ufo-sightings-aliens.html "Kean continued her UFO advocacy work with the assistance of Christopher Mellon, a wealthy defense and intelligence insider."]
• [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/leslie-kean-ufo-sightings-aliens.html "New Wave UFO destigmatizers like Kean, who want to normalize the notion that we have visitors from faraway stars"]

After the mid-sentence citation was added, VPP writes, "{{tq|No editor is authorized to put unsourced content into a WP:BLP. That's it. I was being deferential and gracious to you and allowed you to explain the edit. You had no need to launch this entire ambiguous debate. Good day. I will consider further engagement on this settled matter to be disruptive.}}"

BUT VPP continues, "{{tq|Sure. Never insert unsourced data into a WP:BLP again, please, as well.}}"

They have never given (that I see) any kind of clear answer on why they made some minor disagreement on wording into this very personalized dispute. I'm not asking for a topic ban right now because I think most editors find ANI scrutiny so aversive that being reported itself feels like punishment, and the editor has seemed to move away from the problem area, but that entire discussion feels bizarre and disingenuous, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::VPP was polite and did not personalise the dispute, JPS, less so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1290586166&oldid=1290585761]. JPS could have done what you have above, and indicated a source or sources. Or they could have added a source when challenged instead of arguing the toss. Let's not forget, VPP had not deleted the claim, they had added a citation needed tag. You don't get to just ignore a request for sourcing on a talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Right. There is an element of WP:ONUS here; it is not on VPP to prove that the sourcing does or does not support a given claim added without a source. That's not the order of operations here. If someone disputes an addition on a straighforward WP:V basis on a WP:BLP, it is unambiguously on the proponent to demonstrate that the sourcing burden is met. Now, where we get into more of a grey area is where VPP then concedes that sourcing has been met to verify the fact, but insists on having a policy explanation for why it is due in the description of Kean in the Mellon article. It's here where other parties might start to become justified in feeling that lines are starting to be pushed. Because, to be sure, in form, this is just a typical part of the discussion process. But this is such an obvious call once the WP:V issue is resolved that I can understand if the other parties felt like they were dealing with either a stonewalling or a competency issue. I AGF that this just reflects the lack of experience of this editor, and I would say that jps' response may have been too dismissive of the policy inquiry even for these circumstances, but yeah, in the final analysis I think there is a point where VPP crossed the line into IDHT.{{pb}} I also had previously missed the last two comments Rjjiii quotes immediately above. There are definitely notes of an air of authority and self-presumed position to unilaterally reject edits that present hints of an WP:OWN attitude there. I mean, VPP is correct on the policy consideration that was being discussed there as a technical matter--and Rjjiii kind of selectively quotes them and strips away meaningful context that supports their position (i.e. the fact that they are essentially saying "Now that a source has been provided, I am not opposing this, but at the time that it was added, there was no source.")--but VPP's tone was still so presumptuous and imperious at that point as to send up red flags. Particularly given that other aspects of that discussion demonstrate that they are still coming to grips with some basic relevant policy burdens. {{pb}} So I stand by my assessment: nobody looks good here, and it would not take a whole lot of extra behaviour in this vein for myself (and I presume others) to change our minds about whether VPP can be a net positive in this area. But at the present time, I think a TBAN is not supported by the way this situation played out, particularly given VPP is not the only party to the dispute who could have handled it better. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::When someone else tells you that the sourcing is there (it was there), it is the height of arrogance to claim it was not there. I don't think the citation I added was necessary, but out of a courtesy, I added it.

::::Wikipedia is a shitty enough place without this kind of nonsensical officiousness. This was what I was complaining about. If you don't think nonsensical officiousness is a problem, that's cool. We can have different opinions about what the best way to interact at this website should be.

::::jps (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As to the self-important, domineering attitude, I get it. That's why I made a big point of noting above that the tone of some of VPP's comments go a long way to explaining why you were giving short shrift to your responses to them. Even before you made a point of mentioning that as a factor, it was obvious to me. And a reasonable and predictable response--to a point. {{pb}} But it's one thing to be curt or minimally responsive. There comes a point where you can't cut any more corners if you want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion/editorial reslolution without exacerbating any existing issues. Until you can be bothered to provide a cite for a given statement, they are entitled to insist the unsupported content stays out until someone does. 99 times out of 100, that's just the name of the game here. Do I get why you think they came in hot on you? Yes, absolutely: 100%. Is that the end of the analysis as to why this tempest in a teapot needlessly escalated? No. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::"{{tq|Until you can be bothered to provide a cite for a given statement,}}" sure, but there were two citations at the end of the sentence. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Right, but I don't believe that VPP was contesting the WP:V issue by that point. The description in question was unsourced for a short time, which is when the argument got under way--and way too intense, way too fast. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It was sourced at the end of the sentence. It is now WP:OVERCITEd. jps (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Boynamedsue {{tq|JPS could have done what you have above, and indicated a source or sources. Or they could have added a source when challenged instead of arguing the toss.}} Please stop casting aspersions. The sources were already in the article, other sources were listed in the discussion, and I added yet another source immediately after the CN tag was placed in the articlespace. I would appreciate that you stop impugning my actions and motivations as it seems you have not clearly read through the discussion. jps (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sources being in the article is not good enough, it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim. It is not anybody else's responsibility to read through all the sources on the page to find if one is relevant. There was a citation needed tag which you chose not to resolve, instead preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour. This is a really basic failing which, for me, is utterly baffling. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim}} On what are you basing this imperative? jps (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Right, so to clarify you are sustaining, even when a claim in an article has been challenged, it is not necessary to be able to identify the source which supports that statement?Boynamedsue (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm sorry, I can't tell if that is an answer to my question. If it is, I guess you are either saying

:::::::#That a claim was clearly challenged. To be clear, I still don't understand what exactly is contentious about Kean's connection to UFO literature, but perhaps you see it more clearly than I and can explain it... or...

:::::::#that I was unable to identify the source which supports the statement. But I am stating that a totally acceptable source is right there at the end of the sentence.

:::::::In either case, I remain flummoxed and while I don't expect you to champion the cause of another user, you are impugning my motives here and aggressively accusing me of acting inappropriately at least, so it would be nice to get to the bottom of what exactly you find so objectionable about trying to add some clarity to the explanation of who exactly Leslie Kean is and why the reader should care. jps (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|There was a citation needed tag which you chose not to resolve, instead preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour}} If you check the timestamps, you will see that I made two comments about the sourcing made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1290587825&oldid=1290587361 one minute and three minutes] immediately after the citation needed tag was added. I hope you will indulge me that I was replying on the talkpage and not checking the articlespace for recent diffs for those first two. But I will cop to having made two statements after the citation needed tag was added, but before I replaced the tag with another citation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1290589255&oldid=1290588722]. As such, I object to the characterization of my actions as "preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour" when, in fact, it was less than 30 minutes from the tag being added to my insertion of a (pointless, in my estimation) cite immediately following the phrase and these diffs is the sum total of the conversation that I was contributing in the meantime. jps (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ok, I see that the time was shorter than an hour, which does make things less problematic as I can agree you might not have understood that they were requesting direct evidence to support the claim. But I hope you can reflect on that discussion. You did not enter it constructively, throwing down WP:5, without even a quote, when asked for justification for inclusion is simply unhelpful. Then making accusations of WP:SEALION and WP:CIR when somebody rightly points out you haven't answered their question in any meaningful way is really shoddy. And the accusation of lying is exceptionally confrontational, alongside using words like "clueless" and "mislead". Yes, you were in the right; the claim was really easy to source. But that's what made it all so unnecessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We seem to be at a stark difference of opinion about whether I answered their direct question meaningfully. I tried to opine with perhaps too much brevity that the reader deserved a clearer explanation of the sources provided by describing Leslie Kean as more than just a "journalist". Exactly what words we used to explain her UFO predilections, I tried to be clear, was not something I cared that much about. What I saw as the immediate response to this was, "WHAT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE THIS OPINION?" And I'm like, "all of them"? Seriously.

:::::::I tried to explain later what I think went wrong. If VPP had said, "I think this statement is contentious because people find any connection to UFOs to be contentious, so is this something sourced?" I guess I could have pointed to the source at the end of the sentence? But I thought it was obvious that was the source until the point the CN tag went in. In any case, apparently adding yet another source in place of the CN was good enough, and I didn't care enough to have the WP:OVERCITE argument.

:::::::What it sounds to me like you wanted was someone not to push back on the kind of officiousness that implied that no way but VPP's way could be the right way. That was what I was getting out of that conversation, and I don't buy the argument that the person invoking WP:BLP gets to make demands and act like they own the place.

:::::::jps (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|'it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim' On what are you basing this imperative?}}

:::::WP:BURDEN: {{tq|"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. Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all ... material the verifiability of which has been challenged..."}}. (emphasis in original). Note that WP:BURDEN also includes a footnote noting that the issue is not whether the source is in the article or not: each individual dispute places the burden upon the proponent to demonstrate sourcing support for the claim in question. What's more, even once the WP:V issue is resolved, you still have an WP:ONUS requirement to achieve consensus for inclusion. {{pb}}So Boynamedsue is absolutely correct about who, between you and VPP, was responsible for the legwork of supporting their position with a directly on-point source, and you are demonstrably incorrect. I'm honestly surprised you are not familiar with this requirement, as it is a longstanding and prominent feature of WP:V. And beyond that, I'm curious: even if this were not a requirement under policy, why wouldn't you just provide the source if you knew it was in the article, especially considering you ended up wasting several times as much effort in back-and-forth broadsides on the talk page instead? What is the point of that? It certainly doesn't help your case now, after the fact, when you want to assert that the other editor was not only disruptive, but so disruptive that the community should take action. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Would making this a more general point clarify matters for you? Let's say that there is a sentence in an article: "Living Person A is a B". Two sources are at the end to support the statement. The sources also indicate that, aside from being a B, Living Person A is a B of type C. I add an edit that says "Living Person A is a B of type C". Another editor comes in and slightly changes the words, but the main point stands. A discussion on the talkpage is started where this addition is challenged with the argument that this edit is a "BLP violation". In addition to the sources already in the article, another editor provides a list of even more sources that identify Living Person A as being a B of type C. No real contestation of this characterization happens in the discussion, although some of the sources are discussed (not the ones in the article). Some days later, I return and basically say, "I think it is a good idea for us to include this type C characterization to help the reader." The response from the editor who started the conversation comes back, "what policy supports you?"

::::::That is how I see what happened. Is that what you think happened? If so, please let me know where I went astray with WP:ONUS.

::::::jps (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You didn't provide a basis for your edit in policy when asked for one. The simple way to do this was "Reliable sources use this language, here is the quote. In fact, as this is BLP, here are several quotes from different sources." Instead you simply asserted your edit was correct according to WP:5, and started accusing another user of sealioning for not understanding your reasoning without you having explained it. You then used the length of the useless debate, which was largely useless because you had refused to defend your edit substantively, as evidence against another user at ANI. This is where you went astray.--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Again, as we identified above, you and I are at a difference as to whether WP:5 counts as a "basis in policy" or not in this context. Just to be clear: I really did feel like my edit was done in the spirit of following the five pillars. I briefly thought about citing WP:ENC instead, but felt that 5P was a bit clearer in describing my state of mind. It felt like a high-level question. It did not feel like a question about reliable sources. jps (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't pretend to have read every word of this discussion or its background, but I get the impression that Chetsford has been worn down by dealing with the flying-saucer-conspiracy-theorists. If they were banned from this encyclopedia as soon as they should be, rather than allowed to continue their disruption, then I doubt that any such issue would have arisen. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|If they were banned}} Sorry for being slow, Phil (see my user page) but is "they" Chetsford or VPP? Do you support or oppose a topic ban for VPP (the Chetsford topic ban proposal was decisively resolved in the previous section). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think they are referring to the "flying-saucer-conspiracy-theorists". M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::If so, I have a response above (14 May, in response to Silverscreen) which explains why whack-a-mole blocking is insufficient in itself to substantially stem the issues in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, M.Bitton, I was, and Snow Rise, I'm afraid that that response, which I have read now, was one of the parts of this discussion that I hadn't read properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I recall the UAPDA article and what a time sink that was for editors. An "Act" never passed into law despite VPP's insistence that it had been. I don't know if all that was due to misrepresentation of sources or misreading and lack of competence, but either way it creates a burden for other editors. I think at least a warning after that episode would have been appropriate if not a topic ban. Anyway, support a topic ban now. fiveby(zero) 19:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

It continues, continuing I note that despite VPP's claims to the contrary (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290615341 here]), they have, just yesterday, decided to continue particpating in this topic area, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemiauchenia&diff=prev&oldid=1291192206 now by proxy] and with the ironic, self-contradictory claim that {{tq|I don't want to be involved in this further and will not.}} The simple fact is that VPP cannot and/or will not stay away from this topic area, and based upon their pre- and post-block behaviors (as evidenced above in this discussion), there is no compelling reason to believe their disruptive behaviors would not continue therein. WP:PACT seems relevant here (YES, I know it is an essay), but far, far too much editor time has already been exhausted by VPP's disruptive behaviors. It needs to stop. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I mean, let him have last words towards an editor who's working on the same topics he used to.

:VPP didn't state how or when he was gonna fully leave the topic, and, from the very edit you showed, he is just tying up his loose ends.

:This calling for a ban based on this single edit, and, using as strong as wording as this, feels like WikiBullying to me. 2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|calling for a ban based on this single edit}} That is a total misrepresentation of my post. By the way, how is it that this is your only edit ever to enWiki? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's a rotating IP. No edit history means nothing in these cases. But, yeah, this isn't a good-faith read of the concerns people have. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I didn't follow WK:GF. I think my reply would be better without the last paragraph. About the edits, I'm a newbie who's been following the VPP/Chetsford thing (and also diving into policy pages in the meanwhile, lots to learn!). 2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Request close. I had typed up a "no consensus" closure, then went back and looked and realised that I had commented in the section at the top of this mess. So can someone please give this a closure? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agree, this thread has gone stale and merits a “no consensus” close, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agree with closure, disagree strongly for "no consensus." There are twice as many editors supporting a topic ban than opposing it, and I note that several of the "oppose" !votes are based upon trusting VPP to "walk away" from the topic area. VPP has made no such claim, writing only that {{tq|I think I'm done [with the topic area]}} (quote from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290615341 here]). And even if that claim really and truly was a promise to avoid the topic area, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hemiauchenia&diff=prev&oldid=1291192206 they have already broken that promise]. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::My count does not show a 2:1, but that's not really the major reason why I don't think consensus can be found here. The issue is that nine support !votes is very weak tea for a community sanction, especially when there is substantial contention that it is necessary and a lot of evidence has been presented that other parties whom we summarily let off without action (including the one originally reported here) contributed to the overall disruption. It's not exactly a good look if we let off the veteran editors with trouting and then penalize the reporting party, who has less than a year and half of experience with our rules, for behaviour that is roughly equivalent in disruptive influence--and which involved justified complaints about process and no brightline violations of content policies or WP:CIV. {{pb}}So, I have to agree with Bushranger here: I don't see how a closer could reasonably find the necessary level of consensus for a sanction in the above. Now, can I tell you with confidence that I don't think VPP will be back here in three months for similar dogged and problematic behaviour in this area? No, I must admit, I think that remains a not altogether unrealistic possibility. But taking the totality of the circumstances here, I think the result of this whole affair should be a (very short) length of WP:ROPE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|My count does not show a 2:1}} Mine does. {{tq|nine support !votes is very weak tea}} It isn't nine as you claim, it is 12, not counting the latest !vote !votes at the bottom of the page. But...whatever. Of course this isn't a strict numerical counting exercise, so I'll just note that my comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1292189938 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290642643 here] stand. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Strike and edit. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:NOTAVOTE, and IMHO the fact the original report-ee not only originally only weakly supported a minor sanction but has changed to full oppose over the course of the discussion weights fairly notably. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, The Bushranger and Snow Rise are making a strong case for a “no consensus” close. The real question is how much longer this trainwreck will continue to twist in the wind at the top of AN/I. Jusdafax (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Per JoJo Anthrax. There's clearly a consensus that VPP's behavior has been persistently sub-par in this topic area (however polite) and that it is best for the project that they should be removed from it. (If of course they have walked away from the topic as they claim, then the t-ban won't affect their editing anyway.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean there's obviously not clearly consensus, as several people believe there is no consensus. There might or might not be consensus per our policies, but if it's there, it's not clear. Especially given this whole incident has been triggered by pretty poor behaviour from two more established editors, and the quality of argument counts as much as the !votes.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per JoJo Anthrax and the egregious behavior at RSN. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support VPP's not a net positive in this area and it's clear from this topic, and the supporting diffs, that we're just going to be back here endlessly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I can't believe I read through about 85% of this enormous discussion. The whole discussion is stale and everyone has moved on. A variety of different editors have been the focal point and I'd prefer this discussion just close as "Over" (call it "No consensus" if you must). This discussion just needs to be closed and archived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Looking at this whole mess (these whole messes), enough is enough; a sanction will probably help reduce time being wasted in the UFO topic area. Bon courage (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I came here after sifting through the drama and aspersions at a related AfD nomination. I am very sympathetic to the support votes and it is clear that VPP needs to be much more cautious about future behaviour. With this being said, it is clear to me from the competing TBAN proposals and the split in positions on this TBAN proposal, that the community is divided. I agree with Liz: for now, it seems folks have moved on. If things stay that way, great. If things devolve again and VPP continues to be disruptive or there is recurring drama between these two editors, then the next move will be to refer to this to ARBCOM. The only conclusion I have reached from reading this mess of a discussion is that the community is unable to resolve the issue. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|Newsjunkie}}

I'm very sorry to bother you admins about this user again. She is unwilling to stop with her WP:REFCLUTTER, adding of unreliable sources, and pinging us on talk pages when she disagrees with us and then WP:BLUDGEONING the discussions with WP:WALLSOFTEXT.

According to @Butlerblog, who filed the first ANI report on her, she doesn't listen to most arguments or objections. She continues to disruptively edit even though she has been explained why her edits are disruptive. It's a bit tiresome to have to repeat the same things she should already know. If this were a single instance, it might be overlooked, and no one would care. But it seems that her primary purpose here is to WP:REFCLUTTER and WP:OVERCITE articles all over the encyclopedia. It does not improve the encyclopedia even though she thinks it does. The same thing has been explained to her, but she continues to do it. 99% of her edits are adding sources, and a significant number of those are low-grade, soft media that falls somewhere between marginal and fancruft, so it is quite concerning. At this point, it's either that she's unable to understand it, making it a WP:CIR issue, or she simply doesn't care, which makes her WP:NOTHERE. Either way, it's a problem. Her block was for disruption. That should've inspired a change - instead, she hasn't changed - she just shifted the same behaviors to different articles. We don't have the time for these endless wall-of-text discussions on every low-grade source and overcited statement she put up. In fact, she was WP:NOTLISTENING on a discussion involving this site. [https://tvacdb.sandboxen.com/series/merlin] She has made constant false statements on the discussion and multiple editors (including me) said that the site is a fansite run by 3 fans of television. Butlerblog tried to make a message for her to improve, but she disregarded it, and continued her disruptive behavior. @EducatedRedneck warned her about WP:BLUDGEONING and Silently Editing Replies. @Wound theology (who filed a second report), Butlerblog, and I have advised her numerous times to stop, but she will not. She thinks Wikipedia is her own playground. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:This user is disregarding guidance to minimize and avoid interaction with users they don't agree with or and are going after me by tracking my edits and editing pages they have never edited before. While some of the concerns may be legitimate, they decline to engage in substantive discussion and instead constantly rehash accusations and they also don't understand all the policy they are citing themselves, for example that is permissable to add social media links in the External Links section: Talk:Abigail Hawk#Social Media Account or that Youtube links from official sources are acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&oldid=1291556363 I reverted and they went here instead of discussing where all I did was cite applicable policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FBI_(TV_series)#c-Newsjunkie-20250521235700-Youtube_links_are_permitted WP:REFCLUTTER is an essay, not a policy. newsjunkie (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::(Just adding the diff I meant to add above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291556363) newsjunkie (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:In the other instance with the Merlin instance I started a discussion on the Reliable Sources page which did not have an official conclusion outcome and I haven't done anything about those sources since, and this user also discrupted it with a non-substantive argument that was not based on the substance of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_477#c-NacreousPuma855-20250515190400-Newsjunkie-20250515180200 The incident with Educated Redneck was one instance where I didn't know the policy and I did it the correct way since. I believe the user above is holding a grudge based on a previous dispute on the CBS Page and is making personal arguments about the editor, rather than substantive ones about the content and is turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND newsjunkie (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::It’s turning into a WP:BATTLEGROUND because of you. Not us, your disruptive editing. WP:HOUNDING "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" I have been trying to correct their problems, however given their history, it is clear that they haven't learned from their past behavior. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." newsjunkie (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Multiple editors opposed to her changes at the Merlin site, and I told her to drop the stick when she kept egging the discussion on when her site was opposed. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It was a substantive discussion based on policy as it was supposed to be, and the guidance for talk pages is: "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." newsjunkie (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This is ANI. Substantive claims have been made above and this is the place to focus on those claims. Stop quoting waffle because that looks like a deflection technique. Please either say nothing or respond to the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Here are the links to the previous reports: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Disruptive_editing_and_slow_edit_warring_against_consensus], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#Renewed_edit_war], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#Part_3]

:::::And here are the links where Butlerblog has warned her numerous times. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_(cat)#Truss_and_Starmer_References], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newsjunkie#Questionable_sources_and_COI]

:::::Also, here is a link to the fan site discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_477#TV_audio_commentary_database] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::There has been no prolonged edit war on my part today and the reliable sources discussion was a legitimate discussion for the other instance where I brought it up as is the policy. I did one edit today on the page in question where I added legitimate information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291499614 and then I did one revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291561764 and also brought it up as a discussion where I briefly quoted policy in question with no response Talk:FBI (TV series)#c-Newsjunkie-20250521235700-Youtube links are permitted, which instead was reverted again by the other user instead of engaging in discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291561764 and then they brought it up here. And in both the other discussions cited above, there has been no further edit warring either, there was no active dispute currently and there were somewhat different circumstances in each with somewhat different issues being at stake where I made an effort to address concerns substantively even when others were making it personal. And in all the recent cases above, the editor who made the report here never edited the page before and only made an edit or got involved in the discussions because I was involved.newsjunkie (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Briefly looking at this discussion and the edits by {{user|newsjunkie}}, this seems like a WP:COMPETENCE issue, mainly, newsjunkie's apparent inability to drop the stick. wound theology◈ 03:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:Wound theology, can you provide some diffs? CIR is a serious charge. I see a lot of complaints about Newsjunkie but no diffs until towards the end of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::See the other ANI threads about newsjunkie:

:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#h-Disruptive_editing_and_slow_edit_warring_against_consensus-20250405122300]

:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#h-Renewed_edit_war-20250425192100]

:::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#h-Continued_edit_warring_by_Newsjunkie,_possibly_WP:NOTHERE-Disruptive_editing_and_slow_edit_warring_against_consensus-20250408210000]

:::I haven't delved super deep into this {{em|particular}} discussion, but it seems like a continuation of their general modus operandi: adding large lists of low-quality sources (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_%28TV_series%29&diff=1291556363&oldid=1291553123] and arguing the point when asking for clarification and then receiving it (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_477#TV_audio_commentary_database]). I'm too busy to get involved in the content dispute between these two, but if they're continuing to act like they did elsewhere (even after receiving a topic ban), then I do think that this might be a WP:CIR issue. A persistent inability to collaborate is unfortunately a no-go. wound theology◈ 06:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have always been open to collaborate and *always* been civil which I think especially the diffs from the back and forth today should illustrate: i started a discussion and the other user did not engage or make any substantive argument as to why these particular sources were inappropriate in this instance (I know ANI is not really for content disputes so I'm not going to go into the details of the sources at the moment) and is just making accusations, including previously telling me to read policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Hawk&diff=prev&oldid=1291238695 that they clearly did not fully read or understand themselves: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-NacreousPuma855-20250520001200-Newsjunkie-20250520000100 Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 The other user is criticizing me for starting talk page page discussions based on policy and then refuses to engage themselves or to see how an exception to a policy might apply in particular instances: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600-Newsjunkie-20250519233300 I told the other user that they should consider minimizing interaction rather than seeking out conflict repeatedly Talk:Larry (cat)#c-Newsjunkie-20250510231500-NacreousPuma855-20250510231100--- I had abstained from making an ANI report myself because I felt it would escalate things and have been trying to treat these issues as the content disputes they are based on substantive arguments which they seem to have some trouble doing.

::::Also just to clarify there has been no topic ban: both the reporting user and I were initially blocked for 24 hours from the CBS page which is I believe where this dispute originated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#c-The Bushranger-20250425235600-Claiming consensus when there are only two involved and personal attacks This was then extended in my case due to a specific page/talk block in connection with a separate dispute on the Harry Potter page where the reporting user was not involved at all, and since then I have been trying very carefully to follow the dispute resolution process by engaging in substantive discussion as much as possible and addressing specific concerns, including by going to the Reliable Sources Notice Board or doing a Request for Comment, where in both cases the reporting user left comments that did not really engage with the substance or were unhelpful Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS#c-NacreousPuma855-20250426235300-Newsjunkie-20250426172100 newsjunkie (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't know why you linked this because it totally illustrates my point. I'm going to reproduce what {{user|Butlerblog}} (sorry for the ping!) told you there:

:::::{{blockquote|quote=I'm not going to be drawn into another extended sealioning discussion (which is why I did not respond to the first comment). If it were a single instance, it might be overlooked, and no one would care. But it seems that your primary purpose here is to WP:OVERCITE articles all over the encyclopedia. If you think this improves the encyclopedia, it doesn't. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors in multiple discussions, yet you persist. I don't think I could be any clearer than that. At this point, unless there is some visible change, there's zero point in further discussion because you're WP:NOTLISTENING.}}

:::::Edit wars about overcitation (as you clearly were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&action=history here]) and tedious sealioning (continuing to spam multiple replies across several edits) seem to be themes with you. I have not yet seen you demonstrate the {{tq|ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus}}. wound theology◈ 10:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::A review of the most recent content discussions might give the appearance that this is just a content dispute between newsjunkie and NacreousPuma855. However, I think the reason for that is other editors are simply fed up with it and don't have the time for the ensuing textwall discussions. The problem is that what newsjunkie views as improvement to the encyclopedia is not seen as an improvement by other editors. I have yet to see a content discussion in which a single editor agrees with newsjunkie's position. In the interactions I have had, it is easy to see why some editors just give up on it. I have struggled to put my finger on the exact nature of the issue, but I would certainly consider wound theology's CIR suggestion. Here are some thoughts and examples:

::::::* After a drawn-out discussion on use of primary sources and notability being thoroughly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Official_website/Amazon_release_info_as_Link/References_at_Thomas_&_Friends explained in this discussion], newsjunkie immediately followed that in other articles with more editing of the exact nature that was shot down in the discussion.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantis_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1288494678][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merlin_(2008_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1288495520]. Seeking input after edit warring, having standards explained to you by multiple editors, and then, going off to insert more of the same exact type of edits into other articles is either WP:NOTHERE or CIR.

::::::* The reason for citations is verifiability, not simply a way to insert external links as in this example of 14 primary source citations newsjunkie added to a single bullet point (Blue Bloods) here:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunnyside%2C_Queens&diff=1288595418&oldid=1272982425]. Subsequent discussion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sunnyside,_Queens#References] was no different than any other content dispute with this editor - but I think the point that this one emphasizes that if there is not a clear black-and-white policy, newjunkie see these types of edits as "allowed" - essentially, if they are not "disallowed" then that means they are "allowed".

::::::* At Larry (cat), as per newsjunkie's typical editing pattern, there were 7 citations given to a single sentence - several articles, a youtube video, and two X.com links. I removed the most egregious items over three edits:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_%28cat%29&diff=1289566248&oldid=1289464721], leaving 3 sources that were the most tightly focused (for a sentence that really didn't need more than one or two). One thing I noted in my edit summary was that The New York Times article cited was was superfluous and unnecessary as it made one single sentence mention of the topic being cited. The response to that was to edit the sentence to specifically quote the NYT article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289619522], later noting that {{tq|The New York Times is reliable}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289799770]. This gets at the crux of what newjunkie is unable to recognize - yes, the NYT is a reliable source - however, in this context, it is superfluous, and force-fitting the text so you can use a specific source doesn't actually lead to article improvement. The source, even specifically quoted, is still just a passing mention of what the source is citing.

::::::An uninvolved editor or admin trying to determine what's what here may simply see this as a series of content disputes. The problem is that these are consistent patterns, and the ensuing discussions follow the same consistent pattern. The same things are being explained as objections, and in every case, we get sealion responses like this: {{tq|My only point is that arguments or objections should be substantive}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289813872] - even though substantive arguments and objections have been consistently raised numerous times over the same types of issues. So what the core of the problem is, I'm not certain. But I do know that it is consistently disruptive. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::All I will say is that yesterday in the edit that prompted this particular report I did seek consensus by opening discussion and the other editor who filed this report did not. Overcitation and the use of particular sources has to be considered case by case in each context. In the Larry the Cat case as I explained, I only added an additional citation to address a very specific edit by another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289462762 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&oldid=1289463661and so I was asking how that policy applied in that case in that context which was barely addressed by the other users. In the final edit did that has stood since then I explicitly removed several references to address the overcitation concerns while also trying to address the original issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289828045 In the other instance I also sought input at the no original research board several days ago to try and understand how common knowledge specifically applies for geographic places that one recognizes though I have gotten no response (I just realized today that I had forgotten to sign it somehow by mistake, though I think it was clear anyway:Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#c-Newsjunkie-20250522144300-Using TV Series or Film imagery or video as Primary Source for filming location) There has been no ongoing edit warring in the older examples cited. Most of my edits across multiple page have clearly been reliable sources for the claims made with no objection, the main objections have been coming repeatedly from only two editors who have been explicitly seeking out my edits, with the reporting user in this instance being the most disruptive. newsjunkie (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::People aren't seeking out your edits to make objections. You've been adding low-quality linkcruft across the encyclopedia and refusing to put down the stick or get the bigger picture. wound theology◈ 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is why it is a CIR issue. You seem to think that each of your edits must be considered case by case, but as noted in my post above, many editors (myself included) simply do not have time to address every edit that is problematic. Once it has been explained to you as it has been multiple times, you should have the competence to recognize the difference between what is expected/acceptable and what is refclutter. As to seeking out your edits, yes, there are editors that are going to do that because has been no change in your established pattern, as very clearly indicated by my first bullet point example above. As wound theology noted above, this isn't simply to make objections. It's to fix the mess. If your edits were productive, no one would object. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::(Adding the correct diff for the Larry the Cat edit) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=next&oldid=1289464721 newsjunkie (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::First of all, I did not file this report because of the FBI (TV Series) article. I filed this report because of Newsjunkie's CIR and sealioning (false responses) issues. When she disregarded Butlerblog's Article Assessment message after a discussion where she added a fan site that credited her, that's when I considered a fourth report. And then looking at her continued messing up of articles was the final decision. She is pretending that what she did in the past didn't happen. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::They filed the report immediately after the FBI article interaction yesterday when I reverted and they declined to engage.

::::::::I brought up the website in question at the Reliable Sources noticeboard as is appropriate and explained repeatedly that I had zero editorial control over the page regardless of what the other issues may be and hadn't done anything with that source following the discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Stop with the sealioning please. I'm not going to explain why I filed the report again. I didn't engage because the same editing of unreliable sources, overciting, and sealioning discussions has been consistent from her across multiple articles. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It may help to reflect on your history with that reference in particular: you added the NYT article named "New prime minister or not, Larry the cat is here to stay." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1271722689 Jan 25] where it stuck for a while. Then when it was removed on May 9 you added it back again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289583167 two hours later], then it was removed again on May 10 but you added it back yet again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289799770 three minutes later]. Finally, we come to your May 11 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289828045 final edit] you mention above, where the article was allowed to lack that reference for just over four hours. I didn't find any other editor who added that reference.--Noren (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I added it specifically with an attributed phrase in the end to address this edit by another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289462762 and also to a degree also this previous edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&oldid=1286593498 https://]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1286593498 so that the characterization of the account is attributed to a specific source rather than written in Wikipedia's voice as before. I removed other references (including one that was citing another) to address the overcitation concerns and because they were all about one priime minister versus multiple. I was trying to find the most fair way to characterize the account with attribution/sourcing since the existing phrasing had gotten challenged twice. newsjunkie (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::One, please learn to use the [example.com link text] format. Two, you're only proving that you are unable to drop the stick. {{User|Noren}} outlined a clear example of a slow-burn edit war. Your response is to simply justify your actions with an mindnumbing series of raw links that don't actually pertain to the problem with your editing style. In every content dispute I've seen you in, the pattern has been exactly the same: make an egregious, overcited statement, wage a slow-burn edit war when it gets reverted, then sealion or wikilawyer when policy is explained to you (often through walls of text). wound theology◈ 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Pretty obvious that her behavior isn't changing. This has been consistent from her for 1 almost 2 months. What started with a Harry Potter disagreement has now turned into a site wide WP:OVERCITE and sealioning WP:WALLSOFTEXT discussions, all because she can't drop the stick and agree to WP:CIR. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Responding to ping. Newsjunkie seems to have a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. However, they struggle with certain community norms (WP:OVERCITE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:VNOT, WP:BLUDGEON). They have had limited success in aligning their behavior with these norms. (E.g., I have seen few WP:PRIMARY sources from them in recent edits, but the long arguments continue.) Their desire to understand why something is not accepted can come off as WP:BADGER and WP:WIKILAWYER, but I do believe it's done in an attempt to improve. However, this drains significant volunteer time responding to them. If they could learn to notice when they're the only one convinced of something, and then disengage, I feel that would reduce the issue to a manageable level. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::That had been my original assessment as well, which is essentially WP:NOTHERENORMS. And {{tq|if they could learn to notice when they're the only one convinced of something, and then disengage}} that would help. However, lest it be lost in the mess above, the origin is that newsjunkie believes these are case-by-case issues and that if no one objects to a specific OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT edit, or there is no clear black-and-white policy that states something is not OK, then it's OK. Most of their main space edits are of this nature, many of which have not yet been addressed (the massive cruft added to Blue Bloods and Boston Blue for example) which indicates that either there isn't a desire to {{tq|align their behavior with these norms}} or they are simply unable to understand them. The OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT editing is what has to change. I have not seen a shift in editing style that would indicate either an understanding of our norms or a willingness to align with them. As WP:CIR notes: {{tq|A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up}}. What, then, is the path forward? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I was thinking about starting to clean up those 2 pages. Also, she recently added a YouTube link and am wondering if it’s acceptable or not [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arminia_Bielefeld&diff=prev&oldid=1292250810]. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|q=y|What, then, is the path forward?}} Since we haven't had any reassurance from Newsjunkie that they'll change, I think the best path forward is an indef as a regular admin action. If they can convince an uninvolved administrator that they'll change their behavior, all the better. Otherwise, it stops the disruption. I suggest regular admin action rather than community indef/CBAN to make it easier to appeal. If they promise to change and don't, reblocks are cheap and easy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's exactly what I was thinking. Since she hasn't been changing her behavior, administrator action is the best course of action to take. I support an indef block by an admin. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree, FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe I have made an effort to change as I have always tried to engage in discussion and trying to follow the dispute resolution process as best as I could and there have not been any ongoing edit wars on any of the affected pages. There was no policy violation in the edits that sparked this report and there is no policy violation in adding Youtube links that are official, which again is an example of the user singling out and tracking my edits on pages they have never contributed to before for what seems to be personal reasons and causing me distress. How I am I supposed to show the correct behavior? By not discussing at all in any individual case when each case (or link) is a bit different and in some cases the other user isn't fully correct about policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abigail_Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 newsjunkie (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please stop sealioning. We're not going to ask you again. You say you believe you made an effort to change, you said that before and you didn't. As Wound Theology mentioned above, we are not seeking out your edits for personal reasons. You are still adding low-quality fan sites and overciting across the encyclopedia and Sealioning discussions. And stop pretending that what you have done very recently didn't happen. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That you continue to insist your edits were fine when- as far as I can tell- not a single other editor has agreed with you, is part of the problem. It sends the signal that the problems will continue unless you are blocked.

:::::I understand that your interpretation of policy supports your actions. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't a court of law, it's a social club. Even if your read of policy is correct, if it is rejected overwhelmingly by the community, it's called disruptive editing and results in a block. Put another way, if I went into a Flat Earth Society meeting and preached that the world is an oblate spheroid, I would be right, but I also would very quickly be shown the door. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The example I cited above here is exactly an example where another editor did agree with me: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 . I understand your argument, but there have been plenty of edits on multiple pages where there has been no objection at all or no discussion of anything, and if the objections always seem to come from the same two people, is that the overwhelming community? newsjunkie (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your last 2 responses just reinforce my point that you see each edit as {{tq|case-by-case issues and that if no one objects to a specific OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT edit, or there is no clear black-and-white policy that states something is not OK, then it's OK.}} At this point, you should be capable of editing productively, yet every OVERCITE addressed results in a drawnout discussion to justify it. Just because you have {{tq|plenty of edits on multiple page where there has been no objection}} doesn't mean there are no objections. There are plenty of instances that are not OK, which I pointed out above, but there simply isn't time in the day to have a drawn out discussion of Every.Single.One (which inevitably happens each time). If you {{tq|believe [you] have made an effort to change}}, then where are the edits attempting to address other issues? I have not gone through every edit to tag each one, but I tagged a significant number of overcite problems that you've shown zero effort in correcting, such as Boston Blue, where instead of addressing tagged issues, you've spent the last month adding additional ones. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am not the only one editing or visiting that page and I don't think it's up to me alone (or any other individual editor alone) to address all issues, and so far nobody else has felt the need to do so. If edits are built upon and there are no reversions and no explicit objections, isn't one to assume consensus? newsjunkie (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::By way of that example, the line that says {{tq|Following the official announcement of the spin-off, outlets speculated about the new show's possible filming location}} followed by 11 citations appears that you are the editor that added those. That has been tagged as excessive. Suggesting that is (1) not an explicit objection and (2) not your responsibility to clean up just reinforces what has been said already. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I did not mean to suggest that the tag is not an explicit objection, but just to point out that nobody else has felt the need to address it so far, as far as I understand the responsibility to address an issue does not fall *more* on the person who added content than it does on anyone else. newsjunkie (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::And is it appropriate for the reporting user to just delete cited content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&diff=0&oldid=1292396732 without further input while this discussion is still ongoing? And would I be allowed to object or would that be editwarring? newsjunkie (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::1. It's a clutter of unnecessary information and overciting. 2. Please learn to put brackets in urls. [ at the beginning, and ] at the end. More information on Blue Bloods can be inputted on the new sub-topic below. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the Blue Bloods article, which contained severe overcitation and unnecessary information courtesy of Newsjunkie. But now like many other pages, she thinks its okay to have this unnecessary content on Wikipedia, when several other users have opposed to this. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not all that information was mine. There had been no sustained discussion. Talk:Blue Bloods#c-Butlerblog-20250526185100-Content cleanup needed (per recent tags) and I think it could also be argued that this is a case where the "removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." newsjunkie (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::First of all, some of the cited content was unnecessary, 80% of the sources were overcites, almost all of the unnecessary content was courtesy of Newsjunkie and a marginal chunk of unreliable sources cited some of that content. Do you think its okay to have 6-11 sources to support a sentence? You are not taking responsibility for your actions. You've been WP:OVERCITEing the whole encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Fandom. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::ANI is not the venue for content disputes. This is drifting off the topic. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Whatever the issues are such a major removal of cited information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&diff=prev&oldid=1292416073 should have been discussed more substantively and for longer and I believe several reliable sources and at least some relevant information has been removed in a way that is disruptive. newsjunkie (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To clarify, this sub-section is about Newsjunkie's continued disruptive edting, particularly to this page before I cleaned it up. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I haven't done any reversion because I really don't know what's appropriate at this point with this discussion still ongoing, and I have no issue with a clean-up tag being inserted, but that should be a step to initiate broader discussion, not necessarily immediate large-scale cited content removal without any further discussion when there had been implied consensus for a significant length of time until now. newsjunkie (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The editing policy suggests that with larger changes one should be WP:CAUTIOUS newsjunkie (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please read what Butlerblog mentioned above. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My most recent comments are about editing behavior not content (what specifically should or should not be included and why). newsjunkie (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think everyone has stated their cases. Newsjunkie maintains their behavior was acceptable. NacreousPuma, ButlerBlog, and myself believe it was not. Attempts to convince each other of this have not proven to be fruitful. I suggest we all disengage and let uninvolved editors/admins look at the evidence presented. Further back-and-forth will likely clutter the thread, and make it harder for an admin to close. If an uninvolved editor has questions or wants more evidence, they need but ask. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Unfortunately I think this discussion is now too unwieldy and long-winded for any admin to bother getting involved. wound theology◈ 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Unfortunately, I think you're correct in that assumption. The key items are lost in the mess. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as a content dispute. There is an obvious pattern of intractable behaviour that is clearly not consistent with community norms. The mess that was the Blue Bloods article is problematic by any standard. Just a single example: {{tq|In 2023, the show was renewed through season 14, with the cast and producers taking a pay cut to help secure a 14th season, for which production began in late fall 2023 after the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.[161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][13][169][170]}} That there were many, many more before a 153,000 character cleanup that reduced 437 citations to 118 (still excessive, IMHO, for an article of this size) is really at the crux of this. It needs to be stopped. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just for clarification about that particular citation (I'm not saying it's right or wrong) but the bulk of those particular references completely predated my significant involvement and had been placed there to verify each successive renewal of the show from one year to the next. See this revision from February 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&oldid=1208602513 I had assumed that was appropriate when I started editing the page (and I may have been wrong!) which was why I personally chose not to remove them. I only added the three at the end: One specifically about the pay cut and two about the Sag Aftra strike. There are other instances where I did add all the citations considered to be overcited (though not unverified), though I still think that could have been discussed individually before deletion, especially with more up-to-date information about production and ratings etc now missing post 2013/2019. newsjunkie (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = After a brief block, communication has improved and it looks like the issue has been properly addressed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

I want to raise the actions of a user, {{u|Finn Shipley}}, who repeatedly tries to file their sandbox page in article categories in defiance of WP:USERNOCAT. The page has had to be removed from categories 16 times over the course of its history, including twice in May 2025 alone, despite the fact that I've already posted five prior messages to their user talk page to advise them that user sandbox pages can't be in categories — and the last time I posted to their talk page, I did advise that I would report them to ANI if it continued.

So I'm just not sure what to do. I don't think it rises all the way to the level of requiring a total editblock — prior to the two times this month, it hadn't been readded to categories since April 2024 — but it clearly has to be escalated somehow, since they are disregarding or ignoring numerous prior messages on this matter. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm astonished that someone can have over 50,000 edits without a single edit to their user talk page or article talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::That information would be impressive if nobody had found reason to contact him in that time. Unfortunately plenty of people have contacted him with valid questions and observations on his user talk page, but he has totally ignored them. Usually the reason an editor behaves like that it is because they are editing from a phone and don't know that their talk page has been edited, but Finn doesn't even have that excuse. Let's bring back the orange bar of doom. It was ugly, but effective. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::For {{ping|Bearcat}} - in this case, it looks like good-faith drafting without realization of USERNOCAT - in that case, commenting out the categories would be better than outright removing them. That said, the lack of response regarding this (or any) issue is a serious concern - a pblock from articlespace to drive communication may be called for as communication is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I understand your recommendation, The Bushranger, but in this case, the problem is in their User space, not article space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fair, but...mm, pblock from Userspace then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the main problem is a failure to communicate, rather than the WP:USERNOCAT issue described in the original post. I don't envisage a long block, but simply until this editor undertakes to start communicating, so it should be from whatever space(s) grab their attention most quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::(non-admin comment) I know several ways of making notes for categories in a sandbox article, which i learned after making the same mistake as {{u|Finn Shipley}}. (I'm posting here rather than on their TP to avoid forking discussion.) IMO the best are (1) comment them out using , or (2) insert a colon (:) between "Narky Blert (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have indeffed them, given the concerns raised above and the fact they have still failed to communicate despite very generous comments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFinn_Shipley&diff=1292018261&oldid=1291971905 this]. A user space block will not deal with this fundamental issue, given they continue to edit away in mainspace, and continue to ignore this thread. GiantSnowman 18:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:His block appeal (and the first edit he's ever made to his talk page) runs "I apologize for the lack of lack of response because I have not checked my talk page thoroughly as I have been preoccupied with other activities outside of the site, and wish to cooperate with other moderators to fix the issues addressed." Riiiiiight. Somehow his preoccupation with "other activities" hasn't stopped him from making several hundred edits over the last week, 2400 edits this month, and over 15000 edits since the first of the year [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Finn_Shipley], many of them bunched in the course of only a couple hours at a time. His communication with us ought to start with a little less by way of BS. Ravenswing 20:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::It also sounds like it was written by AI. GiantSnowman 08:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The unblock request is a run on sentence. That is an indicator that it isn't AI. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Their most recent unblock request looks like a good indication that they are aware of the concerns and intend to do better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I said when I blocked them - I have no issues with the block being lifted once they have started to communicate and deal with the issues raised at ANI. GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Their most recent unblock request says that they are willing to communicate and they have responded to numerous old messages on their talk page. @The Bushranger and @GiantSnowman, is there any reason why they are not unblocked yet? Toadspike [Talk] 08:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I've unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've removed the categories on my sandbox so I should be good so let me know if there's anything else I need to do Finn Shipley (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Please continue to communicate with the community. GiantSnowman 18:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Will do just that Finn Shipley (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|2401:D800:238:26B4:1841:8508:1F38:9DD0}} is a new account, but appears to have admited socking https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&diff=prev&oldid=1292531481 has satted they will continue to sock https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2401:D800:238:26B4:1841:8508:1F38:9DD0&diff=prev&oldid=1292538149 (with a sock, and a bit of PAing). What to do? Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well, we can consider a range block. Have you identified any other IP accounts they may have utilized recently? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Probably a User:Phạm Văn Rạng sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::There are other editors in the /40 who look to be innocent, so that range may be too wide. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Usual block for IPv6es is the /64, isn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Right, but there was discussion of a larger range, and the editor in question noted that they were going IP-hopping, so I was looking at whether a broad range block would be ok. The answer is, not really, unless things get really bad. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The IP editor 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 became involved with two AMPOL articles that I wrote—One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Donald Trump's memecoin dinner—and one I did not, $Trump, over the weekend. Their edits have been particularly inflammatory towards both pages and have resulted in an array of reverts, even for innocuous edits. The most disruptive of these efforts has been at the formermost page. Their work is correlated with a series of edits made by Special:Contributions/The Final Bringer of Truth User:The Final Bringer of Truth; in particular, this revision and this revision. In addition, The Final Bringer of Truth edited the lattermost page, though I am not familiar with that situation and will discuss it in less detail here. The Final Bringer of Truth's large edits both involved portraying the bill and the dinner negatively by excessive citations. In the original revision for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, The Final Bringer of Truth empirically stated that it was the "largest upward transfer of wealth from the working and laboring classes and the poor to the rich ... in human history" by using citations largely from op-eds. On the dinner page, The Final Bringer of Truth wrote in the second sentence of the lede that it had been "described as 'an orgy of corruption' and 'the Mount Everest of American corruption.'" While not technically erroneous, the claim lacks attribution and is relatively undue given that it was previously a one-sentence lede.

The IP editor has edited in the same areas and defended the same text—a particularly striking correlation for Donald Trump's memecoin dinner, which had received no edits from other users until that point, leading me to assume that The Final Bringer of Truth and 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 are the same person. Amid a contentious topic designation for these articles, the IP editor has been combative and unresponsive in terms of their edits. Chronologically, their efforts began by accusing me of being unfamiliar with policy, asserting that the content must stay to another user, and suggesting that I am incompetent after discussing the article with other editors and deciding to merge it as the primary author. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has repeatedly claimed, "Leads are required to mention topics of significant controversy related to the article topic," but has so far failed to give any indication that the content in their edits is worth inclusion beyond stonewalling.

The edit summary that encouraged me to seek ANI as an avenue was from the talk page, where 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 decried the "pro-conservative bias of this article" as "truly sickening"—a blanket assertion that lacks no basis, especially when considering that the vast majority of the article describes the history of the bill. The comment itself seems to suggest that a crusade against "propaganda for the Trump/Musk administration" is necessary; lacking substance or specific examples, this comment seems to suggest that the IP editor is unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. It is my impression that, given this edit summary, the talk page comment, and The Final Bringer of Truth's username, that this user holds a clear and unshakeable bias. More broadly, they are unwilling to cooperate with other editors and appear unrelenting in adding this content.

There exist four comments discussing the lede on Talk:One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In "Criticism in lead", 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 did not directly address concerns that the content violated NPOV, instead only opting to change "note" to "argue". The IP editor added, "I hope this works," a strange comment that suggests that they are unfamiliar with the process and are simply seeking to make slight changes but keep the broader content without discussing the critical argument writ large. While 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has moved the section "in the spirit of compromise," it is clear that any attempt to follow WP:BRD has been forgone. That is dangerous on a contentious topic.

In addition, it would be worth noting some minor edits made to other pages, particularly in regards to the "See also" sections of $Trump and United States Department of Homeland Security. In both cases, 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has made insinuations that $Trump is a host of financial crimes and that the Department of Homeland Security is the Schutzstaffel without adequately defending their edits in an edit summary. When the IP editor does use edit summaries, they have misrepresented the edits at issue, including claiming that a move was a "removal" or describing their edits as the "clean version" while removing the {{Tl|POV}} tag. I am suggesting here that the IP editor be banned from editing in this topic for several months if they are unable to show that they can be constructive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Just a friendly reminder that CheckUsers can't publicly connect an IP to a user account. However, that being said, I support the idea that the IP should be topic banned until they can show they can be constructive. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• ElijahPepe, what was this "off-wiki discussion" that led you to decide to Merge this article? Where did it happen? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::The discussion occurred on Discord. I merged the article after a user proposed merging into an uncreated article about Trump meetings and an administrator suggested that $Trump would be a better target. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::...merge discussions should not take place on Discord. We have article talk pages. That's one reason they exist. Doing it off-wiki is a stupendously bad look that, y'know, shuts out the majority of the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Exactly. Discussing a merge on anywhere other than Wikipedia, especially on a platform with private messaging like Discord, has an effect that runs contrary to the principle that Wikipedia is an open, free encyclopedia. Granted I don't know exactly what was said, who it was said to, or when, but this may be some sort of canvassing as well. Pretty much any discussion of that type needs to be conducted on-wiki to preserve the project's integrity. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This was not a formal discussion, it was an off-handed comment that I agreed with. The decision to merge rested solely with me. Regardless, focusing on the merge here is missing the forest for one branch of a tree. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I mean, you used off-wiki discussion as your sole rationale in your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump%27s_memecoin_dinner&diff=prev&oldid=1292373255 edit] turning the article into a redirect! That's a bad idea for reasons that I assume are now obvious - if someone disagrees, it doesn't give them much to engage with beyond reverting and saying "no". --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is not missing the “forest for the trees”, since the reason we’re here is that you’re upset that I suggested you might be incompetent for not realizing why you shouldn’t delete an article with the explanation being “Per private communication.” Indeed you even admit openly in the above to canvassing and off wiki coordination and planning and conspiring with other editors to push your Trumpist agenda. My god, if this isn’t a bannable offense, what is? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tqq|I don't know exactly what was said, who it was said to, or when}} - This. We don't know it {{tqq|was [only] an off-handed comment}}, especially since you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump%27s_memecoin_dinner&diff=prev&oldid=1292373255 explicitly said there was a discussion]. Which was it? A discussion or an off-handed comment? And either way, we assume good faith, but it'd be nice if there was a paper trail (so to speak) one way or another. If somebody comments, or discusses, off-wiki, and you agree with it, the next move is to start a move discussion on-wiki - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::By my read of things: elijahpepe asked for advice in the Discord server, and he ultimately decided to do a unilateral bold merge per WP:MERGEINIT, but he wrote a poorly-thought out edit summary that made it look like he was invoking consensus when that's not what he meant to do. Regardless, even if there had been an offwiki merge discussion, it doesn't count toward anything and this is effectively a standard bold merge. Now, if people had been canvassed and came to !vote on his behalf onwiki, that would be a different story. But that's not what's happened. Regardless of the Discord issue, the IP is pretty squarely WP:NOTHERE except to push a POV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• You focused heavily on {{ping|The Final Bringer of Truth}} in your comment but didn't notify them; you're required to do so in this situation, I think. I've gone ahead and notified them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, I made some edits while logged out. What of it? It was not intentional. My page kept crashing and logging me out. This seems to be a case of Boomerang, as the reporting editor’s conduct shows many egregious violations beginning with 1) Literally and unironically claiming ownership of articles “he dared edit MY articles I wrote myself with my bare hands” go read the way he phrases it, very sad stuff (many people wrote those articles; did you think no one was going to make an article on the congressional budget bill without you, hero? No one owns articles) 2) coordinating off wiki by his own admission , which i had to reprimand him for (he literally disappeared a page with the justification offered being “per private off-wiki communication”-outrageous!); 3) repeatedly displaying competence issues. Writing the article originally did not grant you special privileges to delete it once others had contributed to it based on an Off-wiki discussion. 4) Additionally, you seem to be unwilling to listen to my reasons for including that content , but I explained slowly and carefully to you many times why it was appropriate for Big Beautiful Bill article to include 1 sentence (I’d like to make absolutely clear to all of you who may have been fooled by his endless stream of verbiage that this editor is objecting to my including 1 sentence in the article lead) that stated that critics of the Big Beautiful Bill have said it is a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which was voluminously referenced. First it would lack balance if our article failed to mention such a notable aspect of the bill in the lead. Second, lead policy requires significant matters of controversy to be covered in the lead. Third, as to your spurious assertion that it does not belong in the lead because it is mentioned in the article, this is the opposite of how things work, since content must be present in the main article to be in the lead, which obviously should be connected to the article. 5) Not everything is about you. The change from “noted” to “argued” was in response to another commenter on the talk page who made a reasonable claim that “noted” was inappropriate, and so I made the change in response to this persuasive objection. 6) You are intentionally trying to deceive the other editors here, since you know very well that the sentence debated over said that "critics said that it was the largest transfer of wealth" and that I did not state the criticism as an empirical fact. Very dishonest and dishonorable. 7) The name is obviously tongue in cheek. What’s wrong- i thought comedy was legal again? (Should you really be critiqueing the user names of others when yours is a symbol of white nationalist trolls? Again, Boomerang applies) 8) It gives me no pleasure to say that the reporting user Elijah whatever must be banned (though his talk page evidences a long, sordid history of misdeeds) as they have openly admitted to off wiki coordination, canvassing, and conspiracy to promote a particular political viewpoint (and in a quite organized manner, on a discord). Cheers, friend. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm going to first reiterate that I used the wrong term to describe what occurred off-wiki. I was given advice by another editor to merge the dinner page into another article that did not exist. An administrator joined in and suggested $Trump as a viable target. That was the extent of the conversation. I should have said in my summary that I was merging the page because there was not enough content to sustain a separate article, and I still believe that most editors would come to that conclusion if I were to open a merge request or an AfD right now. I apologize for the confusion.

:::As far as the rest of this comment goes, there is much exaggerated here. The back-and-forth was limited to moving the sentence below the lede—as you mentioned, "content must be present in the main article to be in the lead"—on the bill page three times, the second time because I was falsely accused of vandalism. I did not revert you on the dinner page; merging an article that was not a redirect previously is not a revert. I did not "[l]iterally and unironically [claim]" to have owned either article, and I haven't been involved with either article enough to even falsely assert a claim of ownership.

:::Including excessive citations to prove a point does not necessarily mean that something is worth including. I felt that the article was biased against the bill, rather than being a neutral space, and I was reaffirmed in that conviction by several other editors who expressed concern at this particular sentence. You still have not put down the stick when it comes to this sentence. Combined with your statement that the article is biased, that led me to believe that WP:POVPUSHING may be occurring, in addition to inflammatory statements that you have made against me—even now, insisting that I have "competence issues".

:::In terms of the purpose of the lede, statements made in the lede do not necessarily need to be "duplicative". I often write biographies of living people and I rarely need to directly copy and paste a sentence unless the subject's article is so small that it is necessary. Karoline Leavitt, for instance, provides a summary of what follows, not a verbatim report. {{U|Aquillion}} addressed this point very well here.

:::Here is what I will suggest. Rather than flinging accusations for the next day or so, let's return to the talk page and discuss this, which I arguably should have done in the first place. If there is such a strong response to this bill—I wouldn't be familiar with that as I do not read op-eds or think tank pieces—then that should be reflected in sources beyond what I just mentioned. I am going to WP:AGF here; I suggest you do the same. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sounds good to me. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Given this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1293065624, this seems to be very much an advocacy account that is here to right great wrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:This editor has removed the POV tag from the article One Big Beautiful Bill Act twice now and is repeatedly reverting edits to the lead, reinserting the same content multiple times without consensus. I’ll raise this issue on the talk page but I felt it was necessary to mention it here. 206.57.166.53 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have now made them aware of wp:3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act#%22Voting_by_Democratic_Representatives%22_section_is_misleading

:::This editor is incredibly aggressive in their tone and approach, accusing fellow editors at random and taking unproductive approaches. Tofflenheim (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It’s just frustrating discussing the article with you since you don’t understand WP:Synth. It’s an excellent read. I promise you’ll learn something new you don’t know now. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't care how frustrated you are, the way you express yourself is way out of line. You have tons of people in disagreement with you over your conduct and can't seem to self reflect at all. Your only move is to accuse others of being ignorant, incapable of reading, or other random insults. Tofflenheim (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No one is here to make friends. This isn’t about your feelings. Wikipedia:Competence is required. You can’t just keep repeatedly arguing on behalf of a synthesis that isn’t present in sources. Bring sources not pointless tone policing. Great, you’re offended by my tone. Then listen when I explain to you the first time about why you can’t make synthesis that isn’t present in a source. Cheers, friend The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I totally agree that competence is required. Which is why its puzzling that you jump into the talk page accusing me of that when your own sources literally explain the hypothetical I was giving: "Two Republicans missed the vote early Thursday — and if they had voted, three additional Democratic “no” votes could have fought it to a tie, blocking the bill, at least at that moment. The GOP would have had to win the votes of one member who voted “present” or flip one of the two who voted “no” on the bill. Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier."

:::::::Now what? What's the next insult? Tofflenheim (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think you should work on your reading comprehension. The passage you cited supports my point not yours. Think about it what that passage actually says. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hint: it is saying that the democratic deaths were decisive, which is the claim you keep trying to remove. Think about what you read, and think about what you write next time. Cheers, friend The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Why are you replying here instead of the talk page? This is not the right place. Happy to prove you wrong in the proper area, but you won't reply there for some reason. Just here and on other Arbitration pages. Tofflenheim (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::In what way is the article NPOV or poorly sourced? Can anyone just add tags to the article at random without offering justification? I asked you to justify the tag and you were unable to justify it as NPOV beyond “I don’t like it!” The claim that it will remove 14 million Americans health insurance is not “partisan” or my “opinion” or “NPOV”. It comes from the congressional budget office. The page is “owned” by a number of right wing editors who think they own the article and that anything not taken from congressional republican press release is NPOV. I challenge any uninvolved editor to review the page and assess the spurious claim that the page has any left bias or is inadequately sourced. Interestingly I was also accused of using too many sources; my opponents accuse me of both using too many sources and too few; they object to material in the lead for not being present in the article, and being duplicative of material in the main article, etc. These arguments are meritless and lack basis in reality. Please review my contributions to said article: you will see I am one of the only editors there scrupulously sourcing their claims and not uncritically adopting the perspective of the bill’s writers. Cheers. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@The Final Bringer of Truth, just today you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1293051302 restored] speculation that is tagged "source needed" but wrote in your edit summary {{tq|Restore factual and well sourced information from reliable sources}}. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It was not speculation. It was sourced information. You know very well there were multiple references appended to that sentence. I’m shocked at this open dishonesty. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Where is your diff if I added material that did not have multiple references? Since you don’t have one, retract your slanderous claim The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The addition is right here. I don't see any references in it, are they somewhere else in the article?

::::::{{tq|The narrow passage led to internal backlash and division in the Democratic Party, which lost the vote due to three elderly Democratic representatives having died in the first five months of 2025. If any had voted the party line, the tie vote would have sent the bill back to committee.{{cn|date=May 2025}}}} MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ok I see what happened. Someone removed the sources, tagged it with citation needed, and then removed it because of no citation. When I wrote the sentence, there were sources. This is very shady. I would never add a line without multiple sources. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1292200178

::::::::See here. The sentence had multiple reliable notable sources. Subsequently, an editor deleted the sources, then tagged it as uncited, then deleted it for being unsourced. Do you not all find this kind of underhanded editing outrageous? It is absurd to delete references and then claim that the underlying material should be deleted as unsourced. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think it was actually (also) moved to *Voting by Democratic Representatives*. Similar text, with references is there on the current version of the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes you also bring up a good point that material in the lede that is cited elsewhere in the article does not require citations in the lead anyway, showing even more clearly that the removal of this content was done in bad faith. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you bringing the vandalistic removal of sources to my attention. I have reverted the vandal. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

And now their user page talks about wanting to kill wiki-lawyers. I don't like commenting at ANI, but I think it is time for an indef. This is completely unacceptable at a level well above their already-problematic comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I have started an AE thread regarding the registered user's behavior in this topic area. I haven't been keeping up with this thread, I only noticed it when I was going through their contributions to gather evidence for the AE thread. But if people think there are other editors (whether IP or registered) connected to this, please comment there as well. And if one of the threads (this one or the AE thread) are closed, perhaps the other one can be closed too. Just noting this here so everyone is aware. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:After having read through this, I would especially request anyone with evidence that the IP(s) may be the same editor provide such at the AE thread, so that all of them can be topic banned (or blocked) as admins decide are appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::You just revealed you didn’t read the thread in your statement announcing you had read the thread . Irony! The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe you should focus on improving articles rather than pursuing vendettas and wasting administrator and arbitrator time ? You do understand arbitration is not the relevant venue to raise complaints about tone right? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• WP:OWB #72 strikes again: {{noping|The Final Bringer of Truth}} indef'd by {{ping|Tamzin}} for the edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1293168261 referred to here]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{user links|Ultra 348}}

The user's talkpage is replete with warnings to use edit summaries [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ultra_348&diff=prev&oldid=1245867227][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ultra_348&diff=prev&oldid=1270022039]. They are not, and today are making several edits per minute for hourslong span. I didn't add another warning, instead went to ANI. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:That very much appears to be automated editing. I haven't looked at all the rules on using bots, but don't they have to include a note in the summary about what tool they're using? Even leaving aside the normal 'what is being changed' summary? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe bot, but maybe semi-automated going from "what links here" results. But we should hear from the editor themselves. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well it’s been a couple of days now and nothing yet (keeping this thread from being archived) Danners430 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't recall edit summaries being a strict mandatory requirement? I don't think I used any until about 2018 or so? What is more concerning is doing bot-like editing without approval. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:EDITCON: {{tq|All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page.}} TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:Jedorton made couple of personal attacks against me (here and here), actually they tagged me to insult me. When I asked them to withdraw the insult (here), they claimed it was by accident (I will leave you to judge on that) and then attacked another editor (here). After that they stated: {{tq| look dude go ahead & try and ban or block me (I have other accounts) trying to get me to say something out of hand ain't working for you}} (here and again here). Admitting Sockpuppetry

This is not the first time using insults (see this and this), but last time I and another editor (who interfered after I started an ANI) were able to get them to remove it (here and here), this time they actually went further.

Not to mention the long history of edit warring (here), copyvio (here and here), and distributive editing (here). FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oof. Going over those diffs, this is definitely a WP:NOTHERE case. Whatever contributions they're making are dwarfed by the incivilities. I'm all for an indef. Ravenswing 23:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I never made personal attack against this person the * was an accident as stated to him I'm using my phone, the person i called crazy f(not directly to him BTW) fuzzyMagma also called for that person to be banned, also fuzzyMagma kept threatening me (with banning or suspending me) for no reason and erased my edit repeatedly without justification as I used sources hope you hear me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedorton (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::The links FuzzyMagma posted says it all. That torrent of vicious insults with which you hit @Kryako is blockworthy all in itself, and to claim that there's No! Reason! for you to be blocked over it is absurd. (And yes, FuzzyMagma called for Kryako to be blocked. For making personal attacks against you.) Ravenswing 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Both Jedorton and Kryako deserve a block. Wikipedia just isn't the type of place for that. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Something I failed to mention, this person obsession with using the word “Zionist” pejoratively. It all started when they complained about the information form the [https://www.jewishpost.com/news/Simon-Dengs-Speech.html Jewish post] which documents atrocities and the article was about Simon Deng, a Sudanese who was enslaved, something that is well documented and happened (see Muraheleen#Dinka enslavement, Slavery in Sudan#Modern-day slavery, [https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/03/15/conditions-slavery-sudans-civil-war HRW report] and many other sources)

:But this editor left the substance of the source and got fixated on the name of the website, and start using the word “zionist” as a slur (here, here, here, and here) FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::User has posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jedorton&diff=prev&oldid=1292773246 a claim regarding the cause of their behavior]. I'm not sure if this is a variation on the theme of WP:BROTHER, or WP:NOTTHERAPY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Eh, since blocks are preventative, not punitive, an indef here would insulate us against the next time Jedorton was in a bad mood, didn't take his meds, whatever. Ravenswing 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User|Peoplic}} has already been warned about their close paraphrasing,{{diff2|1288933177}} and they're presently doubling down and spreading it across many articles, despite already having made a lot for us to clean up.{{diffs|1290351377|1290349590|1290351605|1290351734|1290351762|1290351992|1290353188}} I had a pre-existing dispute about their inappropriate use of sources, and this report isn't about that—but when they do hew to what reliable sources say, they do so far too closely. Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:All of my paraphrasing and modifications to the text have been thorough, and I have made a concerted effort to contribute to Wikipedia. I have used reliable and modern sources, replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. Nevertheless, you are relentlessly undoing my work. The goal is to expand and improve Wikipedia.Peoplic (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Plagiarism does not improve Wikipedia, it adds copyright-infringing material other editors have to spend a lot of time cleaning up. I'm not ruining your work, because this isn't your work. If you had bothered reading the linked page at any point, you would see examples of plagiarism via close paraphrasing clearly directly akin to what you are adding to these articles. Remsense ‥ 论 08:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I invited you to discuss the topics page by page here, but you avoided the conversation and instead mass-reverted my contributions without proper engagement.Peoplic (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, this is a separate issue of yours that you were given a final warning about before I even noticed your edits for the first time. There's no discussion to have here: I pointed your egregious plagiarism out again, and you went and tried to put it all back again. You need to be prevented from further damaging the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 08:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Your revert here Talk:Fotuhat-e shahi proves that you are acting indiscriminately and have no regard for the contributions of others. Peoplic (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, I have basically two disputes with you, but you're trying to conflate them in order to deflect from your having done the one that no one familiar with site policies would ever doubt, and one that entails legal liability. Remsense ‥ 论 08:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Explain about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fotuhat-e_shahi&diff=1289876381&oldid=1289714853 it Peoplic (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, I will not rehash the other issue here. This is about your plagiarism. Remsense ‥ 论 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::My recommendation for learning to avoid close paraphrasing is WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. Replacing words and changing style is not sufficient. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I have used reliable and modern sources, {{strong|replacing words}} and altering the writing style as much as possible}}. This is the problem. You need to write content {{em|in your own words}}, not by copying a source and then replacing words. I just randomly checked a single one of the diffs provided by Remsense ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1290351377 this one]) and your text is way too close to that of the cited source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I advise Peoplic to read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios and come back when they understand the points made in it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:And maybe also WP:VANDNOT, their edit summaries are all "Vandalism revert" REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Have to say that that is hardly a "plain and simple guide". Wanting people to read rambles like "There's nothing wrong with selling GPL software. I could start burning DVDs with Audacity and GIMP and start flogging them for £20 each down the local market - computer savvy people would be unimpressed I was making money off somebody else's work, but provided anyone could get the original source code (which they can), it's not illegal." as part of a "plain and simple" explanation of what copyvio or close paraphrasing are and how Wikipedia deals with them is not helpful. Better to send editors to our actual policies and guidelines than to this page. Never mind that you seem to imply that it is only a copyright violation because Wikipedia uses a GFDL license, and putting the same text on a website with a different licence wouldn't be a copyright violation. That's just wrong. Fram (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think there's something to be said in the abstract about having a variety of different materials that may appeal or work best for those of different personalities or what have you. If there are other CLOP explainers in projectspace then the more the merrier? Remsense ‥ 论 10:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::The focus on GFDL specifically is weird because single-licensed GFDL text is not allowed to be pasted into the wiki (per WP:COMPLIC, which isn't linked in there despite the talk of compatible licenses). Also needs an update to say CC 4.0 instead of 3.0. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I unfortunately have to unarchive this, as Peoplic hasn't taken heed of what multiple editors here have tried to tell them regarding their obvious close paraphrasing, as they've now reverted me again to restore their plagiarism to articles without meaningful changes{{snd}}at most swapping out a few more synonyms or shuffling some sentences around{{snd}}essentially the same shallow attempts to hide what they're doing as before.{{diff||1292669593|1290355201}}{{diff||1292669299|1290355221}}{{diff||1292492892|1290355283}}{{diff||1291155061|1290355066}} Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::"I no longer intend to continue the discussion. Although my reasons were clear, they were not accepted. My goal was to improve and advance Wikipedia, but unfortunately, my efforts ended in failure. You are free to make any changes you wish to my edits — I have no opinion and will not revert them. Thank you for your participation." Peoplic (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If you continue to add plagiarism to Wikipedia, you're going to be blocked from editing. Multiple editors (including admins) have provided explanations as to why your additions are clear plagiarism, because we'd much prefer if that block doesn't happen, but we have no choice if you refuse to acknowledge anything anyone else says. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I no longer intend to make the kind of edits I have done so far that you call plagiarism.Peoplic (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|4}}

If you still think that what you're doing isn't plagiarism, but only what others "call plagiarism", then a WP:CIR block is needed, since you lack the skills to not plagiarize in the future. EEng 03:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{la|John McIlvogue}}

{{userlinks|ScottishFootballObseasive}}

Please see the brief history of John McIlvogue a very brief purported biography of a Scottish businessman, which clearly fails to meet notability criteria (the only remotely plausible justification being that McIlvogue was majority shareholder in Livingston F.C. in 2023-2025, though there obviously isn't the in-depth coverage required) and gives every appearance of being created to draw attention (top of article body) to a legal issue dating back to 2005 - in other words, an attack page. The creator of the article, User:ScottishFootballObseasive recently started thread at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, complaining that a User:McIlvogue had edited the article, removing the 'legal issue'. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mcilvogue] A brief inspection of the article was all that was needed to indicate to me that WP:BLP policy would mandate removal of the disputed content - we had no way to determine from the source whether the individual named is even the same person. I thus removed the content, and WP:PRODed the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McIlvogue&diff=1292711334&oldid=1292535429] ScottishFootballObseasive then responded by restoring the content, with a clearly WP:OR justification that the individuals apparently have the same birthdate, citing a primary-source Companies House search (see WP:BLPPRIMARY for why this shouldn't have been cited at all). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McIlvogue&diff=1292713039&oldid=1292711334] I have since removed the content again under WP:BLP, but under the circumstances, given ScottishFootballObseasive's apparent blatant disregard for core Wikipedia policy, I feel that further action may be needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Obviously I disagree with the label 'attack page'. I'm a Livingston supporter, creating articles about individuals related to Livingston. No motivation to attack people connected with the club. Reported the conflict of interest with good intentions. I can accept if the individual isn't notable enough but the accusations of attack pages etc is very heavy handed IMO. ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Your 'biography' consisted of 5 very brief paragraphs, only 2 of which were more than a single sentence. Only the lede and the last 2-sentence paragraph even discussed the supposed claim to notability at all. The article body began with the 'legal issue'. If that isn't an attack page, it is a damn good impression of one. And furthermore, basic common sense would suggest that when WP:BLP concerns are raised over article content, immediately restoring it is grossly inappropriate. There was clearly no urgency to restore subject matter concerning events unconnected with the supposed notability of the subject, dating back to 2005. Had you shown the slightest willingness to discuss this first, I would not have reported you. WP:BLP is core Wikipedia policy, and CoI violations, real or imaginary, are no justification for violating it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The legal issue was the focus of the first source/news article that exists about John McIlvogue - the content of the Wikipedia article was written in chronological order. I thought that was obvious. I think you're looking for something that isn't there tbh. I restored edits with a summary of why and noted that I added a source to try and back up my point. As I've said, I can accept if John McIlvogue isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. But for further action to be taken on a contributor with good intentions would be disappointing. ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::'Good intentions' are clearly not demonstrated by restoring disputed content removed as a WP:BLP violation, without discussion. You have entirely failed to give the slightest justification for your behaviour, and you appear to be either unfamiliar with core Wikipedia policy, or under the impression that it can be edit-warred over. I'd add that given both the large number of articles you created (mostly biographies) you have had deleted, [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/ScottishFootballObseasive] and the way your talk page is covered in nominations for deletions and proposed deletion notifications, it might very well be surmised that you have very little understanding of Wikipedia notability criteria either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The notability criteria seems flexible. I could immediately navigate to at least a dozen footballers that have Wikipedia pages, created by other users, with one source from a record archive site or something along those lines, and have been active for years without any deletion nominations. Yet pages with several news articles specifically about the subject are removed. So hopefully you'll forgive me if it's not clear what would appease the Grand high masters of Wikipedia, and what won't. ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't wash. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I can see no point in continuing this back-and-forth with ScottishFootballObseasive, and would instead ask that uninvolved contributors familiar with relevant policy chip in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not going to say much else here, but I think it may be better to use WP:AFC for things like this instead of immediately moving it into mainspace if you are unfamiliar with notability guidelines. I've had issues with notability guidelines myself (see my discussion on User talk:Zxcvbnm#Nahida draft) but it's generally best to ask another editor for their opinion if you're not sure about whether something meets the guidelines or not. » Gommeh (he/him) 14:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Simosalex7poli}}

Context: Alexandroupolis

This name was given in 1920, while the original name was known as Dedeagach in English at that time. ([https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Alexandroupolis%2CDedeagach&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true source])

At some point [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandroupolis&diff=prev&oldid=1225522569 he decides] to remove the name [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandroupolis&diff=prev&oldid=1225556136 then doing again], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandroupolis&diff=prev&oldid=1226803200 then again]. Then he decides only to remove the bold letters[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandroupolis&diff=prev&oldid=1236866747][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandroupolis&diff=prev&oldid=1290575209][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandroupolis&diff=prev&oldid=1292700414].

This is just a disruptive behaviour. Tried to warn him first but saw that he did the same before. Beshogur (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've requested page protection on {{Article|Alexandroupolis}} so interested editors can discuss the city's name on the article's talk page instead. @Simosalex7poli, please make your case there. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Actually the name was discussed several times on the talk page. This user has just other intents. Beshogur (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The user @AlabamaConservative has been repeatedly adding content in 2026 Alabama lieutenant gubernatorial election that violate the MOS:DOCTOR policy. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlabamaConservative&diff=1292744534&oldid=1292736021 warned] them twice, with no response or acknowledgement. Rather than continue to escalate with warnings that seemingly have no effect, I brought the discussion here.

Diffs of repeated additions of violating content: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Alabama_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election&diff=1292632559&oldid=1292606188], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Alabama_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election&diff=1292693208&oldid=1292651987], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Alabama_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election&diff=1292728965&oldid=1292721887], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Alabama_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election&diff=1292738903&oldid=1292735871], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Alabama_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election&diff=1292745323&oldid=1292744483]. The subsequent education titles violate the same policy. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:You are right on the content, of course, but both AlabamaConservative and you are close to violating WP:3RR, and may have done so already. I see that Talk:2026 Alabama lieutenant gubernatorial election has nothing about this. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I had not left a message on the talk page since it seemed that the user page would be the best place to contact them. To be truthful, I was not aware of 3RR until I began looking into what I could do, which is why I did not revert any more content. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone else receive multiple warnings about someone trying to log in to their accounts but being unable to in the last hour or so? I do have 2FA so they aren't getting in, and changed my own password just to be cautious, but receiving this twice in one day is certainly a bit concerning, even as a perennial issue, and I do wish I'd know who was doing it for clarity to see who it possibly could be. Nathannah • 📮 19:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not me, but I have been unexpectedly logged out a few times in the last few days or so. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't have that issue right now, but I have received it countless times in the past however. On at least two occassions there had apparently been 27 unsuccessful login attempts into my account, and my email would also literally get bombed full of those login attempt notifications. Though for me it may have started after I dealt with a specific LTA (who I won't name) on Wikipedia. But after a week or so, it seemed to have died off. This all happened last year, from what I remember.

:Since you have 2FA enabled, I honestly wouldn't worry a single bit. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Seppi333 flounced and indef'd by Bishonen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Seppi333}}

I reverted Seppi333's removal of content from an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Days&diff=prev&oldid=1292670965].

Then they left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&diff=prev&oldid=1292774961 this] message on my talk page: {{tq|"I can tell you and I are about to have a big fucking problem. But after looking at your local and global block logs, I was just wondering, are you a white supremacist? Don’t be bashful. Represent what you believe"}}

A bizarre accusation given I was blocked on German Wikipedia because two users disapproved of me removing anti-gay misinformation about pedophilia, nothing to do with 'white supremacy'. My subpar grasp of German likely contributed to my block too.

Seppi333 again removed the content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Days&oldid=prev&diff=1292761991], and began undoing other edits of mine on completely unrelated articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fecal_incontinence&diff=prev&oldid=1292644221]

"Going to have a big fucking problem" and smearing me as a "white supremacist" is an extremely aggressive and uncivil overreaction to me reverting them a single time. I feel nervous about what this user might do next, and would greatly appreciate administrator intervention before this gets out of hand. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC

After I opened this ANI, Seppi333 is now casting baseless aspersions on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&diff=prev&oldid=1292807233]. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|zenomonoz}} yes let us immediately take this to ani without discussing this with me. trust me bro, you are the bigger problen for not talking this out and discussing this with me me. I may be pissed but i'm still being civil. If you want to escalate,let's go. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::There is plenty of evidence I am not a white supremacist: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Lynn/Archive_5#c-Zenomonoz-20230816225000-Grayfell-20230816195500]. Not going to engage with more threats. Your message warranted an ANI, and your reply is confirmation of that. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think most people would not feel that accusing someone of being a white supremacist for no apparent reason is not terribly civil. Having said that, the talk page for the article makes it clear that this content is absolutely not from a reliable source, it's a blog post discussing another blog post. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, but Seppi333 did not remove it because of RS concerns, they removed it because they think it is "misleading". There are other RS sources that cover the same concerns about Zisblatt's testimony, such as [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Holocaust_and_World_War_II/17EwBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Irene+Zisblatt+deniers&pg=PA225&printsec=frontcover this book] published by historians. And some outlets blogs are acceptable as reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:(Ignoring the content issue tangent) {{tq|"I can tell you and I are about to have a big fucking problem."}} is not conducive to beginning a discussion nor is it civil; it's aggressive and intimidating. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is shockingly poor conduct from Seppi, whom we trust with multiple advanced permissions. I'm not sure what response would make me not support a block, but I hope to see it soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• One thing that needs pointing out here, regardless of other issues, is that Zenomonoz's "this isn't a BLP" edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Days&diff=next&oldid=1292670965] suggests a lack of awareness of what WP:BLP policy actually says: {{tq|Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page...}}. Irene Zisblatt is still alive, and accordingly, WP:BLP policy absolutely applies here. That doesn't mean that appropriately-sourced content can't be added, but it is absolutely essential to err on the side of caution. Which involves discussing things on talk pages, and not reverting on the basis of misunderstood policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the useful BLP clarification. Seppi argued it was "misleading" (Zisblatt says she escaped Auschwitz after a man threw her over the fence, and she landed in a moving train 100 feet away [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/questionable-testimony-in-holocaust-doc-is-grist-for-deniers/]). Other RS have covered this, so they might be worth using to bolster this. The ANI concerns the incivility. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:: thanks andy. ur right. i was indeed a complete dumbass last night because i was drunk when i committed that edit. clearly everyone is against me right now without actually looking into this issue. thanks all. you're increidble admins for ignoring my concern. unless you didnt. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Drunk last night? You called me an extremist on my talk page 40 minutes ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&diff=prev&oldid=1292807233]. The first attack was just a few hours ago. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::“Attack” lol. No worries man. I’m done with wp. This shit is too toxic for me. Ironically I’m almost certain someone is going to make an asinine comment about me being too toxic. Whatever. Bet no one even cares what they just lost. Im out. My last edit on Wikipedia Ever. Peace. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fare thee well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Propose indefinite block: The drunken non-apology and "retirement" are not what I was hoping for. Seppi has retired and unretired before, so I don't think the community can trust that he won't just wait out the scrutiny and return without making any commitment to avoid extreme incivility like this again. I propose an indefinite block. I don't want him to stay blocked forever, but I do want any future unretirement to be accompanied by a sober apology and constructive plan for future disputes. I'm also not necessarily looking for a cban here, just an uninvolved admin who can make the call. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm uninvolved and making the call. Blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 13:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC).
• :Thanks B. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I just hope no one restores the BLPVIO material in its current form. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|2A04:CEC0:1923:757A:0:0:0:0/64}}

I've been referred over to this noticeboard after I had previously reported the above IP range over at WP:AIV. The user behind the IP continues to genre war, as well as make unsourced / original research content additions after a final warning they received on their user talk page. Examples of such edits: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. Thanks, — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like {{IP|2A02:85F:E475:9BF3:B5F0:D004:AFC9:5B5A}} has been doing the same. Diff: {{Diff|Better Off Alone|prev|oldid=1292913754|prev}} » Gommeh (he/him) 15:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:A bit of a late followup, but this /64 IP range has been already taken care of several hours after I made this report. Thanks User:ScottishFinnishRadish!

:And to be honest, the other IP reported above by User:Gommeh is unlikely to be the same person, especially given that it belongs in a completely different IP range that also geolocates to a different country (Greece instead of France). Though they haven't made any edits since 29 May at 15:14 UTC. I went to the /64 of that other IP and reverted one more genre-changing edit that had been missed. I have a suspicion that they are Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techno genre warrior from Greece. Looking at the page history of Everytime We Touch (album) article, the revert of an identical edit (diff 1 vs diff 2) from User:Binksternet seems to confirm this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

== Harassment and block evasion ==

This {{ip|2A01:E0A:5EA:17E0:B8AF:3972:74BC:4D43}} started harassing my talk page, this IP is definitely a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MHD1234567890. I have already filed an SPI case against them and now they continue to harass my talk page with many IP addresses. {{ip|2A02:8440:8124:20C6:D5BF:B15:CCC5:54B2}} {{ip|37.167.45.124}} I reported him for vandalism but it's been almost 1.5 hours and no action has been taken and they continue to harass my talk page. Please do something against this. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Noping|Rikky is dead}}

{{noping|Rikkie is dead}}

{{noping|Rikkee is dead}}

{{noping|Dikky is dead}}

{{Noping|Dikkie is dead}}

{{Noping|Dikkee is dead}}

{{Noping|Riki is dead}}

{{Noping|Riky is dead}}

{{Noping|Rikie is dead}}

{{Noping|Rikee is dead}}

{{Noping|Rikeey is dead}}

{{Noping|Rikkeey is dead}}

{{Noping|Rikey is dead}}

{{Noping|Dikkeey is dead}}

{{Noping|Dikeey is dead}}

{{Noping|Diki is dead}}

{{Noping|Dikki is dead}}

{{Noping|Dikee is dead}}

(I've spread out the names as they are all so similar, it might make it easier if you need to do something with them)

All created within the last hour. Knitsey (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:This might be linked as well...

:{{Noping|Wikki is dead}}

:{{Noping|Wikky is dead}}

:{{Noping|Wikkie is dead}}

:{{Noping|Wikkee is dead}}

:{{Noping|Wiky is dead}} Knitsey (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{noping|Wikee is dead}}

::{{noping|Wikie is dead}}

::{{Noping|Wikeey is dead}}

::{{Noping|Rickeey is dead}} Knitsey (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a crime/mystery novel called 'The Dyslexic Hitman'. Not helping...sorry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::indeffed them all, I wouldn't know whether or not they need a lock without a closer look/doing a CU, which i don't have time for at the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Noping|Ricceey is dead}}

:::{{noping|Ricc is dead}} Knitsey (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sean.hoyland I'm dyslexic, I would have given up after 3 tries lol.

::::@Theleekycauldron thank you so much. I felt there was a lot to deal with so I posted here as well. If they're bots, it seems like an odd choice of names? Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Only a couple more: {{ctop|title=collapsed list of 159 accounts|indent=6.4em}}

Rockie is dead

Rockee is dead

Rocker is dead

Rocky is dead

Famef is dead

Meena is dead

Hana is dead

Jaymee is dead

Myna is dead

Jaymee is dead

Myna is dead

Jayme is dead

Ricc is dead

Ricceey is dead

Rikkardo is dead

Rikkard is dead

Rikk is dead

Dikk is dead

Kcid is dead

Ydnas is dead

Ardnaxela is dead

Ardnas is dead

Trebor is dead

Drahcir is dead

Reeco is dead

Reeko is dead

Ricko is dead

Rico is dead

Dic is dead

Dik is dead

Ric is dead

Rik is dead

Rikard is dead

Rickard is dead

Ricard is dead

Dicker is dead

Sandee is dead

Dickee is dead

Dicky is dead

Dickie is dead

Rikardo is dead

Rickardo is dead

Ricardo is dead

Rick is dead

Saidhbhir is dead

Xandra is dead

Ailig is dead

Gainmhich is dead

Scampee is dead

Scampie is dead

Scampy is dead

Rickie is dead

Richy is dead

Ritchy is dead

Ritchie is dead

Ritch is dead

Ritchee is dead

Ritchard is dead

Balboa is dead

Rickee is dead

Richee is dead

Richie is dead

Rich is dead

Craygee is dead

Craygie is dead

Craygy is dead

Crayg is dead

Creagee is dead

Creagie is dead

Creagy is dead

Creag is dead

Craigy is dead

Craigee is dead

Leighty is dead

William is dead

Henry is dead

Harry is dead

Russell is dead

Charlie is dead

Mina is dead

Meana is dead

Mena is dead

Jhonathan is dead

Johnathan is dead

Leightie is dead

Mathew is dead

Freya is dead

Ruaridh is dead

Roo is dead

Steve is dead

Stephen is dead

Steven is dead

Cree is dead

Jonathan is dead

Jon is dead

Jhon is dead

Denise is dead

John is dead

Kev is dead

Duggie is dead

Dougie is dead

Doug is dead

Douglas is dead

If is dead

Been is dead

Bean is dead

Leigh is dead

Lee is dead

Benn is dead

And is dead

Andraa is dead

Anndra is dead

Ali is dead

Ai is dead

Al is dead

G is dead

Alistair is dead

Alasdair is dead

Barry is dead

Bez is dead

Baz is dead

Andaidh is dead

Andaigh is dead

Sandaigh is dead

Gaz is dead

Gary is dead

Sandaidh is dead

Ewe is dead

You is dead

Mc is dead

Mac is dead

U is dead

I is dead

Danny is dead

Kris is dead

Katherine is dead

Catherine is dead

Kay is dead

J is dead

E is dead

Z is dead

C is dead

Andee is dead

Anndee is dead

Andie is dead

Andi is dead

Sandie is dead

Peter is dead

Bernd is dead

Oliver is dead

Oli is dead

Dick is dead

Jessie is dead

Sandy is dead

Paula is dead

Jimmy is dead

Paulie is dead

Robbie is dead

Robert is dead

{{cbot}}

:::: Its ongoing, not sure how to handle it. Maybe wait a while and sweep up later? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{NAO}} {{yo|Knitsey}} Maybe they really just wanna be the next Willy on Wheels? Worgisbor (congregate) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Good work so far, but, rather than playing whac-a-mole, I would advise people to leave any further users be under the principle of the "I" of WP:RBI unless they edit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Worgisbor Don't give them ideas! @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I'm glad I didn't go back further.

::::::@Phil Bridger, just report to AIV if any more pop up? Knitsey (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'd just ignore those. I noticed those too, when looking at username creations. In my opinion, someone is just having fun. And in the process those usernames get wasted and unused (which in this case, is a good thing). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No problem @Rsjaffe. Knitsey (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't know if the backend has a username filter like how there's an edit filter, but could it be set up where "is dead" usernames get automatically blocked by a filter if this continues? ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 18:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: There is such a filter (m:Title blacklist), and ordinary edit filters can also block account creations, but keep WP:NOSALT in mind here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Page: {{pagelinks|Public security bureau (China)}}

User being reported: {{userlinks|Thehistorianisaac}}

This appears to be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and would very likely fall under WP:GS/UYGHUR given the contents of what this user is section-blanking. Would be good to get other sets of eyes on this to see if WP:GS/UYGHUR applies. Thanks.

Edits in question:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_security_bureau_(China)&diff=prev&oldid=1292912345]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_security_bureau_(China)&diff=prev&oldid=1292862924]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_security_bureau_(China)&diff=prev&oldid=1292834806]

- Amigao (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would think that yes, descriptions of contemporary administration of Xinjiang are related to Uyghur topics broadly construed. Even if the editor in question were to ultimately be correct that this material is not appropriate for the article in question, the question of its inclusion relates to the topic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd say that I half-way agree with you. WP:GS/UYGHUR absolutely applies. I'm less certain about WP:NOTCENSORED this is a bit odd because I don't think I've ever seen an international reception section for a domestic police force. As such I think the blanked section raises a legitimate WP:DUE question. Now @Thehistorianisaac may have been a little hasty and absolutely should discuss this edit rather than just reverting it over you. But the edit, itself, is not entirely without potential merit. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If you look at what was blanked outright, it also covers Chinese police overseas service stations, which is not solely domestic in nature. No explanation was given for this part and it does like a WP:CENSORED situation. - Amigao (talk) Amigao (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I may add Overseas 110 in see also, though I really would suggest reading WP:AGF. Not everything you disagree with is a WP:CENSORED situation. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Rosguill@Amigao@Simonm223

:Have you even read what the article is about?

:The article is on the use of the term "Public Security Bureau" itself and the functions of police departments in China, and not for individual controversies or allegations. It is not WP:NOTCENSORED, it is simply the info is on the wrong page. This has nothing to do with WP:GS/UYGHUR other than the fact that the info is related to the topic. Removing info in the wrong location does not constitute as WP:NOTCENSORED. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I was only commenting on whether GS/UYGHUR applies, and noted that it does apply even if you are entirely correct that the content is not DUE for inclusion. No comment on NOTCENSORED or the state of the article. N.b., nothing in GS/UYGHUR prevents you (or any other editor) from editing these articles, the only thing it provides for is that uninvolved administrators are given greater freedom and encouragement to impose editing sanctions they deem necessary to address disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Thehistorianisaac yes I did read it. I've also been working on and off in the Xinjiang article set since the 2009 Urumqi riots. And I have further experience with contentious topics (and the only reason GS/Uyghur isn't a CTOP is because it predates that system.) When dealing with contentious topics unrelated pages that contain information regarding the CTOP are affected by that CTOP to the extent the information being interacted with is in the CTOP. That means adding or deleting content about the Xinjiang conflict is always within the purview of WP:GS/UYGHUR.

:::Now, this being said, if you look at my response to Amigao you'll see I think your edit had a point in that a "reception" section (and let's be honest, it's all negative stuff so it's a renamed "criticism" section) about a national framework for police services is... bizarre. And frankly it is, in my opinion WP:UNDUE because it's just out of place ChinaBad cruft.

:::I agree with you on that.

:::Where I disagree is with reverting a major change from WP:STATUSQUO without discussion. Going to article talk and saying "no you're wrong" before reverting again is not an appropriate discussion.

:::I've said this more than once today - nearly nothing on this project is urgent and it's OK to leave up a bad edit while a discussion of it is in progress. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::(To be honest I don't completely know what is going on here and what is being argued, just trying to show context)

::::I agree with you on the reception section. it's just more of a controversies section that is renamed, and it ignores the involvement of many public security bureaus with the local community etc.

::::My point is, I don't think this is really involved with uyghur topics (it's like if the law enforcement in the united states article was contentious due to US politics) nor is contentious, I'm just kinda mad that my edit was constantly reverted when I clearly showed that the article was meant to be for the term Public security bureau, not some allegations one of them was involved in. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd say that Law enforcement in the United States is definitely covered by the American politics CTOP insofar as it falls within its temporal scope (post-1992, at the moment). But more to the point, the question of whether something is in scope of a CTOP is always with respect to the actual content that is in dispute, not with respect to what is ultimately determined to be WP:DUE. As an illustrative example, suppose that a consensus is reached that Uyghur-related content is not DUE at that article: re-adding Uyghur content would be subject to GS/UYGHUR, as would any further discussion concerning its removal or reconsideration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Point is, it's not really contentious if it ain't meant to be there in the first place. The previous articles for Public Security Bureau, People's Police and Ministry of Public Security were huge messes that need to be cleaned up. Anyways, sorry for being too blunt on my first comment, it's 2:55 AM over here and I'm barely awake. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No worries. I think a clearer way to understand it is that "contentious" in "contentious topics" refers to the topic in abstract, not to the edit in particular. A designated contentious topic remains contentious even if the edit in question isn't or shouldn't be controversial _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you Rosguill - that was very well said. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for explaining; Still, I don't think it falls under contentious topics, since the content that made it a "contentious topic" was not meant to be there in the first place. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That does not matter. The content may or may not have been supposed to be there, but it was there, and that content is contentious. Therefore it falls under the CT. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The problem is, it's like saying if somebody adds russia ukraine war stuff to an unrelated article (Say, the slovakian armed forces article), the article instantly becomes contentious. I'm not the most familiar with the policies in this aspect, but I don't think articles where contentious topics were incorrectly added are contentious content Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thehistorianisaac, I think you are missing the forest because you are focused on the tree. I would move on and not debate whether or not this edit concerned contentious content. That will cause this dispute to continue on and on. Don't focus on the labeling and just argue that it was inappropriate content for this article (which I think it was) and hopefully this discussion can be closed and any further discussion on your edit can occur on the article talk page where it probably should have happened/been resolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve come across these editors while attempting to clean up the previously chronic lack of sourcing on airline pages, especially fleet lists. I’ll separate them out as I have no reason to believe they’re in any way related to one another, but it doesn’t make sense to have two ANI threads for the same issue.

:Just commenting to keep the thread from being archived Danners430 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|EuroMalikFan23}} - a long history of unsourced additions, with a fair few useful ones too. I was made aware of them through their additions to Ryanair - {{diff2|1286951009}}, {{diff2|1288215053}}, {{diff2|1292643028}}. Other examples - {{diff2|1284866802}}, {{diff2|1290309651}}, {{diff2|1284728665}}, {{diff2|1280030444}}… that’s all since April. They’ve had {{diff2|1286977806|two}} final warnings on their talk page which went ignored, and I even took them to WP:AIV, but was informed that wasn’t the correct venue.

{{userlinks|Kolyan.Mescher}} - another chronic case of not using sources. In the multiple years they’ve had an account, they’ve made precisely one talk page edit. Edits from just this month… {{diff2|1292898561}}, {{diff2|1292898195}}, {{diff2|1292898118}}, {{diff2|1289885598}}, {{diff2|1288963262}}, {{diff2|1288236588}} and {{diff2|1288916650}}. They’ve now reached their third final warning on their talk page, again, ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

In Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles several people accused me of violation of Wikipedia rules, namely WP:MASSCREATION and WP:MEATBOT. Therefore I removed myself from Wikipedia:Seven million articles and started process of moving my stubs into draft space where I can quetly improve them to reasonable quality. (The stubs were very short and the sources were inadequate (one is old book, another turned out to be inaccessible; I just happened to have a part of it

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Altenmann/sandbo&oldid=1290669696 in my sandbox]). Wor that user:Gonzo fan2007 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAltenmann&diff=1292942906&oldid=1292942791 threatened me with an immediate block]. I think this admin was abusing their powers. --Altenmann >talk 19:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

P.S. While threats are technically not actions, just bad taste, but this admin reverted my moves to draft space using the admin privileges, and this is definitely a misuse of the powers. --Altenmann >talk

:Boomerang - This user was grossly uncivil all of yesterday; an ANI sub-thread about them was closed under "this is for everyone's benefit". Statements by them at the talk page of WP:7M include:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Seven_million_articles#c-Altenmann-20250528052900-CaptainEek-20250528050900 "BUT IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT I AM WRITING USELESS ARTICLES, okay?"]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Seven_million_articles#c-Altenmann-20250528073000-Andrew_Davidson-20250528070100 "but meeting with this dismissive attitude I no longer give a fick and continue writing something like Yatzanu at, Fire Hunt with Beaters, or Moskalik, which nobody reads, but at least nobody denigrates"],
• "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Seven_million_articles#c-Altenmann-20250528091200-Andrew_Davidson-20250528085700 Yes, populations of villages are from census, but tell me buddy, where the heck else I am supposed to get them? From Washington Post?],
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Seven_million_articles#c-Altenmann-20250528191100-Thebiguglyalien-20250528185200 "Calling a meatbot a person who put in several days 20 years of volunteer's work for Wikipedia and created 0.1% of its articles is thoroughly disgusting."]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Seven_million_articles#c-Altenmann-20250528194600-MallardTV-20250528194400 Well, that's your opinion of a person who does not give a damn for history, geography and sociology of Belarus.],
• And that was only the first half of the page.

:: Yes, Calling a meatbot a person who put in several days 20 years of volunteer's work for Wikipedia and created 0.1% of its articles is thoroughly disgusting. --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, absolutely, I support the biggest boomerang anyone has in their arsenal. This is ridiculous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:It would be fantastic if Altenmann stopped spiraling over this and just took a break for a while. He did something that annoyed people, they said things that seem to me unnecessarily mean, and he responded in kind. It would also have been fantastic if people hadn't kept poking at someone who was clearly upset. But at this point, Altenmann, no one is continuing this except you. My uninvolved perspective is that insisting on draftifying your articles is veering towards disrupting to make a point. Please just disengage, even if you feel unfairly treated.

:Also, can I salt Wikipedia:Eight million articles to proactively prevent this from happening in the future? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASeven_million_articles&diff=1292814838&oldid=1292814334 "'are unlikely to be greatly expanded any time soon' - ignorant snub-nosed opinion. Take a look at Khorastava rural council now. And I only started digging into history and geography."] another diff of some uncivil behavior.

::If people need me to dig up diffs, I can. But the gist is that Altenmann mass created articles on small municipalities in Europe to try to "achieve" the 7 millionth article. Throughout the entire discussion, they were combative, argumentative, uncivil, and disruptive. When consensus formed that they were unhappy with, they then moved a number of the articles they created back to drafty space, without reason, blanked their user page, blanked their talk page, removed the article they wrote from WP:7M, and complained on the talk page. Overall the behavior has been disruptive and they have been given a long leash. At this point though, they are on a final warning, because the community is done with this behavior. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I resent this accusation. Two months ago I created some 400 stubs on elderships of Lithuania, such as Taujėnai Eldership, without any expectation of reward. This is what I am doing or 20+ years now: conterbalancing of the flood of "pokemon and pornstars" (a wpmeme from old times). --Altenmann >talk 20:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I fail to understand tow civility issues caused the admin to revert my perfectly valid moves to draft space. Right now I am in process of cutting my stubs with edit summary: "rm copyvio from /pop-stat.mashke.org/belarus-census-2019/minskaja.htm; sorry, I was not thinking clearly" - Indeed I cut and pasted the html texts from sources. While technically census data are in public domain, their form of presentation is copyrigted. After that all pages will be useless one-liners, like Paplavy rural council, akin to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_205#RfC_on_draftifying_a_subset_of_mass-created_Cricketer_microstubs cricketer stubs] the community decided to get rid of. I decided not to wait for an extra insult and draftify mine mself. --Altenmann >talk 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Altenmann, if you look at the list of editors with the most edits to their name, you'll see some of our most productive editors have been indefinitely blocked, not for violating content guidelines but because they are simply too rude to be on this platform. I think much of these complaints would be lessened if you were just not so hostile and defensive to your fellow editors. Consider the complaints dispassionately, is there any grain of truth to them? If there is, alter your behavior. If not, then politely explain yourself.

::::But being abrasive and going on the counter-attack can only lead to a block. I'm sure we both know of some editors who were once great editors here but who are no longer active because they couldn't work nicely with others. Not being civil can result in even the best of our ediors no longer being an editor. I say this not as a threat but I see you digging yourself into a hole that might be hard to climb out of. I recommend dropping this and getting back to the work of editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes Liz, I know that, and if blocked for incivility I would not contest the block. To the end of discussion I started cooling down and edited some my responses. But in response I got "I appreciate you revising your comment above, which is still easily found in the page history" - very polite and very big-brotherish. I was a cornered rat. --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am aware of my drawback and last several years I am editing subjects nobody cares about, but sometimes shit happens. --Altenmann >talk 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Still, this does not answer my complaint. Me being abrasive can make me blocked, but reverting my perfectly valid draftification is another thing. Heck, Liz, you draftified one of these mine yourself a day ago! Do you want a diff? --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASeven_million_articles&diff=1292939096&oldid=1292937861 you were] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASeven_million_articles&diff=1292939856&oldid=1292939628 making] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASeven_million_articles&diff=1292944135&oldid=1292943902 a point]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Really? I was accused of meatbotting, right?. Under the pressure of many, I addressed the accusation. Still, this does not justify your intervention as an involved admin (yes, I missed this another sort of your abuse of admin's powers). As Liz rightly pointed out, many good people were desysopped, including myself when they started feeling too powerful. --Altenmann >talk 21:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support boomerang per EF5, yeah. Also, per continuing WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. Their answer to Liz was very positive. Unfortunately, their subsequent replies show it to be an aberration. Altenmann was out of order on the thread, but that was then. If they'd left it at that, well, everyone gets het up, even over something as dumb as article count (is quality < quantity in the postmodern?). Although editing-warring over your own stubs/drafts is pretty specialist. But to then have the stones to bring to ANI says NOTGETTINGIT more than anything they've said so far. Which itself is saying something. It's Time for a Time Out. (For everyone else as much as Altenmann.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::*You are saying that misuse of admin's powers may be fended off by boomerang? By this logic no one can contest an abusive admin. I saw it happened in the past all the time (when I was edting controversial topics). There is a revert war. An admin who edited the page a week ago blocks one side they think is abusive. And whack, an admin gets punished. --Altenmann >talk 21:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::*I never mentioned article count. I am sure you are sure that it was a deliberate joke on my side. Yes it was. But I pulled it while spending an inordinate amount of time, and being accused of being a bot and an abuse of Wikipedia really ticked me off. Several times before I was accused of making life of good people more difficult by creating new articles. I was silently chuckling before. But this time the straw broke camel's back. --Altenmann >talk 21:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::*{{tq|WP:BATTLEGROUND}} - just answer yes/no: Did the admin abuse their powers? --Altenmann >talk 21:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tqq|this admin reverted my moves to draft space using the admin privileges}} Moving articles is not admin privileges, so I'm inclined to say no. Deleting articles - which was necessary to move the articles - is, but seeing as you had tagged the redirects left by your pointy moves to draftspace (which should not have existed in the first place, as you should have unchecked the 'leave a redirect' box on the move form) with db-author (which technically doesn't apply because redirects are not articles, but R2 does, so we'll leave that) they were technically honoring your deletion request, so I'm very much inclined to say no, there was no abuse of admin powers here - indeed what we have is yet another case of WP:OWB #37. Given that and your other conduct here, what I am very inclined to say is you need to drop the stick and move on immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*Actually no, technically he was not honoring my deletion request, just the opposite. But thank you for answering on the subject matter. This gives me an opportunity to deny your judgement of my intentions; just see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byerazino%2C_Byerazino_district_rural_council&diff=1292952199&oldid=1292642603 my edit here]. This has nothing to do with the stick, but rather with the quality of the article. Whereas the admin reverted my moves without asking me why I moved them, apparently having preconceived notion about my intentions, just like you have. --Altenmann >talk 00:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*Now, preventing a possible desire to revert my edit as well, let me explain why I think it is a copyvio. As I wrote, two days ago I was not thinking clearly. Now I realized that while the data of a census are indeed in public domain, however their presentation is not, because presentation is a creative act. I brainlessly copied the html tables creatively arranged by a non-government person. Therefore please do not revert my edit without confirmation from our copyright gurus. P.S. I ama aware of the phonebook copyright case, but IMO it is not applicable here.Altenmann >talk 00:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::*Alright, since apparently I wasn't clear enough the first time, this is a final warning. Either drop the stick or be blocked for disruption per WP:IDHT (with a side of WP:OWN). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{smalldiv|1=@The Bushranger This isn't related to the matter at hand, but FYI only users with the suppressredirect right—bundled within page mover rights, part of the admin toolkit—may untoggle that checkbox and move an article without a redirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::TIL! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Per Floquenbeam's comment, I think everyone should disengage, and this thread should be hatted. I can only barely imagine anything good resulting from keeping it open. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well, for starters, I want my good name cleared. I am willing to accept a big red "Last Warning" on my talk page regarding my civility and watch my tongue or else (my end of the boomerang), but I want a clear message from the community about the opposite end of the boomerang, namely whether it is OK for an admin to act based on their presumptions about someone's intentions. See my answer to Bushranger if you didn't pay attention to it. --Altenmann >talk 00:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In my world, your name is as clear as crystal. I think a lot of misunderstanding, misconceptions, differing notions of what Wikipedia is about, lack of the assumption of good faith, lack of empathy, lack of letting things go and so forth contributed to this turning into the mess it never should have become. I don't think your reputation or name are tarnished, but I don't think people are going to give you exactly what you are asking for either. Budging is not one of editors' core skills here at WP:ANI, and I think moving on may be the best way forward. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support this assessment. Not opposed to Floq's salting plan either. CMD (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Support a WP:SALT so the community can figure out where to go from here. There's actually quite a bit of pushback to an 8M commemoration. — ^EF⁵ 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Altenmann: your complaint here is that you received a warning from Gonzo. Instead of responding to that warning and civilly asking for an explanation, you reverted the warning; blanked your user page and talk page, changing both to {{tq|Taking a break to quiet my shattered nerve after persistent accusations of me being a bot}}; and then opened this ANI thread half an hour later. I think that you should ask for a 72-hour WP:SELFBLOCK to take some time to objectively assess the situation, come back, and apologize. Otherwise, I would support another admin imposing such a block for your disruptive conduct leading up to and in this thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• The conflict between Altenmann and Gonzo_fan2007 does not warrant a threat to shut down the potential commemoration of the 8 millionth article. On current projections, that won't happen for five years which is not a pressing problem. These milestones have usually been recorded in a reasonably collaborative and congenial way and so one incident is not significant. In this case, for example, I created an article to participate in a small way. It wasn't close but still seems a positive and productive addition which will be useful in other ways. Other editors have likewise contributed in various ways which mostly seem commendable. Please assist this productive process rather than punishing it.

{{Million article milestones navbox}}

: Andrew🐉(talk) 06:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::There is no "conflict between Altenmann and Gonzo_fan2007", only Altenmann [doing all those things that have been stated above]. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Gonzo_fan2007 created the WP:7M page and is the #2 contributor of text to its talk page. They are quite involved in the process for the seven millionth article and this is obviously a factor in the clash with Altenmann. And, as they have been tussling over the draftifications of the rural councils, that's a plain content conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{U|Andrew Davidson}}, tussling? Please re-read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=1292994560&oldid=1292991730 the comment] by {{U|voorts}}. I reverted pointy page moves once, with the only warning being about their civility (a warning they had received multiple times, from multiple editors). Yes, I was the editor/admin that "closed" the discussion at WP:7M, but I took this role because I had no real skin in the game. I very specifically did not create any articles at the time and all of my commentary was focused on trying to find consensus while one editor was disrupting the process, both in mass creating short stubs and being rude and uncivil. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{resolved|Blocked from article namespace indefinitely by {{noping|Rsjaffe}} — Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}}}

• {{la|BC Fourteen}}
• {{lafd|BC Fourteen}}
• {{userlinks|Faktmagik}}

The BC Fourteen article - a biography of a filmmaker - has long had issues with promotional editing, lack of sourcing etc, and was recently the subject of a thread at WP:COIN, where the editing of User:Faktmagik, the latest in a long series of single-purpose accounts responsible for most of the content, was discussed, with particular regard to the addition of unsourced content, and the removal of notability and CoI editing templates. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#BC_Fourteen] Despite notification, and despite the same discussion being linked on the article talk page, Faktmagik has failed to respond in any manner beyond once more removing the templates, while suggesting in an edit summary that "It is our professional opinion that wikipedia's assigns can kiss our (apparently) trivial ass." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BC_Fourteen&diff=prev&oldid=1292943667] And while I'm reluctant to propose a block for the subject of the biography (which seems this almost certainly is, from edit summaries), I really can't think of anything much short of that which might get the message across that the article needs to comply with Wikipedia standards, that this isn't a webhosting service, and that if a biography is merited (which is open to debate, given the apparent lack of the sort of WP:RS in-depth discussion of the man himself needed to demonstrate notability), we need to see evidence for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:60 edits, 58 to BC Fourteen and two to edit filter false positives. I'd give them a day to respond here. If no response, then I believe an article space block is in order, as they must WP:COMMUNICATE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Between the vanity edits and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BC_Fourteen&diff=prev&oldid=1292604638 venomous edit summaries], it's clear to me the user is WP:NOTHERE in any serious sense. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::PS. The user also fails to respond even on the usertalk with all the greetings and warnings. Only defiant and nasty edit summaries. JFHJr (㊟) 21:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd be happy to NOTHERE block them, tbh. Uncalled for rudeness and clear promo. Secretlondon (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That would be perfect. The best use of WMF bytes today. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I see your point about the seriousness of the problem. I'll pblock from article space so they can still respond here or at COIN if they so desire. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faktmagik&curid=80034612&diff=1292979577&oldid=1292949105 that worked]. For now. This is someone who's had multiple previous accounts, does not mind editing logged out, and will almost certainly sock at this namespace after block. Unless this is deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{articlelinks|Owen Tangavelou}}

A number of IP addresses, most recently "2A02:8424:BCC8:4C01:E80F:C3C7:7520:8797", have been continually adding nationalistic and unencyclopaedic content to the Owen Tangavelou article. Tangavelou is a French citizen who competes under the Vietnamese flag, but the IPs are rabidly (and without sources) maintaining that he is Vietnamese and any corrections are rabidly reverted. A rangeban might be necessary. 2001:8003:268E:A800:4815:64B4:791A:D066 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do any of the sources confirm that he is French (I don't read Vietnamese)? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I recommend all parties read MOS:NATIONALITY and discuss on the talk page. Sesquilinear (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{nac}} Partial unblock clearly not happening, closing this down before OP digs the hole further. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 15:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, When my move page suspending will finish?

For a year is suspend are you crazying that you will not finished it?

Who are you decision for me what should I behave?

Your sanctions is enough for enough

Wholy shit!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by July2806 (talk • contribs)

:{{re|July2806}} Your rant here does not inspire confidence of your competency in executing page moves. The block is indefinite and will remain so until you can demonstrate the need and competency for the right by making requests at WP:Requested Moves. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I think {{userlinks|MinorProphet}} could do with a break after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MinorProphet&diff=prev&oldid=1293075885 this]. Even if he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MinorProphet&diff=prev&oldid=1283700679 the son of a hugely successful lawyer and "no-one has ever thrown WikiRules at me and survived"]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked for 72 hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Hopefully they are just having a bad day. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::72 hours seems, exceptionally lenient for saying you've been convicted of violent crimes before, and warning an editor they aren't safe from you.

::{{tq|I can never travel to the USA because of my criminal record, which involves knife crime, bladed articles etc. That may be a good thing. I reckon you don't even live in this country (ie The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because of your wildly inaccurate view of the justiciary and how it works in reality. I strongly suggest you fuck off and die. Yeah, complain, bitch. Whatever you might think, this is not, repeat NOT a "safe website". There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone.}}

::We should believe him, and improve the safety stance of the site through an indefinite block. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree that 72 hours is exceptionally lenient; this isn't just run-of-the-mill incivility due to frustration. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Happy for anyone to extend the block, up to and including indef. I blocked for 72 hours to prevent ongoing disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'll note that last time I indef'd an experienced editor for making threats, I was immediately reversed over my objection; perhaps that unconsciously resulted in me limiting the block length (I just thought of that incident now). I hope that other admins care more about the safety of the community than defending a "net positive". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I understand - and it should have been an indef - but hopefully this will give them time to cool down and understand what exactly they did wrong. I'm not making this an indef in the spirit of WP:NOTPUNITIVE. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Blocking an editor for violent threats isn't punitive, it's preventing real problems. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Sure - but an indef - at this point - where the user is already blocked and not disrupting the wiki is punitive. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That doesn't make any sense. Replacing a block that expires with one that requires the editor to communicate isn't punishment. Punishment would be accepting his apology, believing it won't happen again, and blocking him for 72 hours because he broke a rule. This is preventing an editor who is telling other editors they aren't safe, because of him, from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia. Do you have any reason to believe the threats are over and the editor understands the problem? 12.75.41.115 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Do you have reason to believe that the threats are completely real and the editor has not understood the problem? If you believe so, you should email T&S at WMF. I don't encourage that but it's an avenue that anyone can take. My reading of WP:NOTPUNITIVE disallows me from placing an indef. Other admins are free to do as they desire, it's an open community after all. This will be my last reply on this matter, as there is nothing else for me to do here. qedk (t 愛 c) 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree. I don't think upping the block would be punitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::(Not an admin) (Edit conflict) I'm an infrequent visitor to the admin noticeboards.

::::::::::It looks to me that MinorProphet drops in (out of the blue) a comment about their criminal record involving knife crime (what has that got to do with the edit), the the son of a hugely successful lawyer and "no-one has ever thrown WikiRules at me and survived" , the ACAB edit summary, fuck off and die, and There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone to me indicates an inability, or lack of will, to work on a collaborative project. Their excuse of being drunk is just that, a poor excuse.

::::::::::I do understand voorts reluctance to go further than a temporary block. We do however, block editors for less. I realise this editor is an established editor and that that is taken into consideration. I would also expect the safety of other editors to be taken into account as well which would suggest a longer block wouldn't be unusual for this type of behaviour. Knitsey (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• :This is the second time this week we have had longtime Wikipedia editors write out-of-character, aggressive comments and then mention they have been drinking. I think, if it doesn't already exist, we should have a Wikipedia essay with the title, "Wikipedia:Don't Edit While Intoxicated" (and that goes for all intoxicants, legal and illegal).

::It's tragic that an editor can toss away 16 years of solid editing experience with one drunken rant. I'm not condoning these comments, they are vile, just trying to put them in context with the rest of this editor's history. I almost want to ask if this account is compromised because when I look at this User talk page, I don't see anything else like it and the editor was posting a remark to a message from months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Liz}} There's WP:DRUNK. You can also hijack WP:EUTI to make it serious. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Given their previous comments in early April, themselves following an article edit in late March adding "lazy fuk" in a hidden comment, I am sad to say that it might not be a one-time thing.{{pb}}Regarding that essay, we have it: Wikipedia:Editing under the influence it is! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I see we already have Wikipedia:Editing under the influence but it's tagged as a "humorous essay" when I think it's actually deadly serious. Thank you for the links. I imagine that over the 24 years of the project, we have blocked many once solid editors who vandalized or botched up when they edited while drinking or wasted and now they are too embarrassed to appeal their blocks.

::::I see looking into their User talk page history and seeing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MinorProphet&diff=prev&oldid=1283714577 this edit] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MinorProphet&diff=prev&oldid=1283690940 this one], it wasn't one drunken rant but probably one of a series focused on this one User talk page message that seemed to set them off. Still, it seems out-of-character for them. I see a message there from Duncan to them so maybe he has some familiarity with the editor and their competency. But I don't think you can edit here for 16 years though without getting some things right. I'll be interested in hearing their response to this block when they sober up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I know MinorProphet from the RefDesks, and I've helped fix a reference error or two in articles they have written. The comments today seemed extraordinarily out of character. I think it's best just to leave things as they are and see what happens when they come back. With that said, I'm sure there are some here who will go out of their way to stir it up again given half a chance, by demanding apologies and retractions and self-criticism sessions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:AGF is for everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Indeed, and I have no doubt that those I meant would be certain they were acting for the best. It it possible to have the best of motives and a terrible sense of proportion. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I just want to add to what DuncanHill said. MinorProphet helped me on the RefDesk with questions about science fiction literature in the past, and they were extremely helpful and encouraging. Their recent comments sound unusual, and could be easily explained by some kind of drunken bravado or cultural machismo, or perhaps one of any number of explanations. They have been a net positive here in the past. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry. With all due respect to Voorts, threats of violence, or implied threats of violence, merit no lesser response than an immediate and indefinite block. ({{tqq|I can never travel to the USA because of my criminal record, which involves knife crime, bladed articles etc. That may be a good thing ... I strongly suggest you fuck off and die. Yeah, complain, bitch. Whatever you might think, this is not, repeat NOT a 'safe website'. There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone.}}) Yes a user's positive contributions need to be taken into account when sanctioning, but the safety of all editors needs to be our paramount concern. Indefinite is not infinite, and if MinorProphet can give a satisfactory explanation for this aberrant comment, in such a way as to resolve the legitimate fears of physical violence that editors would at present feel when interacting with them, then I would not object to an unblock. But you do not get one free threat of violence per 10,000 edits. I have extended the block to indefinite. If those who've defended the leniency of the original block object to this, I am happy to defend the indef at AN, XRV, RECALL, wherever. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Good block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Tamzin}} Unnecessary, as there was no immediate threat to anyone or anything, and unkind. You are exactly the sort of person who I mentioned, with the best of motives and lousy judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Average Internet insult, average 72-hour block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Average kurd}}

Hi, I am reporting this user in which they go with the name of "Average Kurd". Average kurd has insulted me twice. Here they insulted me in arabic:([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1991_Altun_Kupri_massacre#c-Average_kurd-20250529122000-R3YBOl-20250528172500]) and in case he tries to remove the message ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1991_Altun_Kupri_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1292892823]). he wrote in arabic " علاوي" I don't think we can use arabic here because it's english Wikipedia and as I know we all here have to contribute with english in the English Wikipedia paltform. since I know arabic, average kurd here called me "Allawi" and it's an insult against iraqis because most of the population of iraq follows Shiasm that's literally a religion and nationality disrespect . here Average kurd insulted me again in his edit summary, Pushing their point of view: ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Tuz_Khormato&diff=prev&oldid=1293084781]) saying in his edit summary: "Unless you are mentally retarded or blind", They have been warned for being civil before. I really don't know what to say anymore. I want an administrator action to solve this Situation here. I forgot to say that in the last 3 months (Including this month also) There is a huge amount of articles that are being created lately and the topics are about conflicts between kurds and Iraqis. Best. R3YBOl (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked for 72 hours. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Endorse that block; the "retard" comment is not acceptable here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{User|Alainprost2}} recently accused {{user|RyanW1995}} of vandalism here at Pope Leo XIV (with this a week ago apparently being the vandalism) in an apparent slow-motion style edit war (see also this revert from a bit prior). I'm bringing this to AN/I because Alainprost2 has a recent warning from CycloneYoris for edit warring at Pope Benedict XVI, and a level 4 warning from Darth Stabro on MOS disruption in addition to a few other discussion points on style - see their talk page. The first diff I linked has the summary {{green|Vandalized by RyanW1995}}, and given the context I brought this here. I'm not involved in this conflict but that edit summary strikes me as an inherently disruptive accusation of a long-time and established editor. (Side note: I'm having a bit of trouble getting the proper diffs - if what I link seems irrelevant, check the next diff on the page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.) Departure– (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Departure–}} What I did was simply removing the (what I felt was excessive and unnecessary) spaces between the parameter names and the entries in the infobox (in the source editing mode).

:Instead of:

:

:{{Infobox Christian leader

:| type = Pope

:| honorific_prefix = Pope

:| name = Leo XIV

:| title = Bishop of Rome

:}}

:{{clear}}

:I prefer:

:

:{{Infobox Christian leader

:| type = Pope

:| honorific_prefix = Pope

:| name = Leo XIV

:| title = Bishop of Rome

:}}

:{{clear}}

:I feel that this was just a minor edit, which certainly didn't qualify as vandalism in my opinion. It didn't even affect the appearance of the article itself (or even the infobox)! RyanW1995 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::It wasn't vandalism, and here is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Leo_XIV&diff=1293119664&oldid=1293029942 diff with the accusation] in question. It may be possible that {{U|Alainprost2}} doesn't understand that vandalism has a very specific meaning, and shouldn't be used unless it is indeed vandalism. That being said, I wouldn't edit-war over it either. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't want to seem like I'm calling for anything here, but Alainprost2 spends a lot of time making edits that are entirely cosmetic or nearly so, which has generated nonzero friction with other editors on numerous occasions. They've been talked to about it before. Remsense ‥ 论 10:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Nyam Nyam Tiger}}

{{user|Nyam Nyam Tiger}} abuses the wording of site guidelines and removes all material tagged with {{tlx|cn}} in a completely arbitrary and destructive manner. This comprises the majority of their contribution history, and amounts to meatbotting on their part. They have started socking in the range {{IP|2603:8000:E800:5F4E:0:0:0:0/64}} to avoid scrutiny about it, where they already received a block by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I have already warned them about the sockpuppetry/editing logged out, but it has now continued.{{diffs|1293131124}}

They seem to believe "citation needed" means "dubious", and as I made very clear to them on my user page, they are not entitled to unilaterally decide unsourced material isn't allowed on Wikipedia and go on sprees removing it without expressing any discretion whatsoever about the citeability of individual cases. The only case-by-case specifics they have ever acknowledged in their reasoning is the age of the citation tag, which is totally meaningless and insufficient by itself. (If it were sufficient reasoning, we would let actual bots do this nonsense instead.) They've even knowingly removed sourced material because the section still had an {{tlx|unsourced section}} tag.{{diffs|1292908152}} They plainly do not understand what the term "original research" means.{{diffs|1293117110}} It's a severe competence issue at a minimum. Remsense ‥ 论 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is a great time to remind editors of the following provisions of [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1293004887 WP:V] (main text plus Note [e]):
• :{{tq|When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable ... When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material ... it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.}}

:This can't be overstressed: the test for removal is {{tq|a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified}} -- not just "I'm removing it because I can". (BLP exceptions apply, your mileage may vary.) EEng 23:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::@EEng thank you! Jahaza (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Remsense}}, While - as EEng points out - the lack of explanation is a problem, the removals are not. Any uncited information in Wikipedia may be removed at any time by any editor, regardless of whether or not (a) it's tagged with {{tl|cn}} or (b) the age of that cn tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::No, because the lack of explanation in this case clearly reflects a lack of valid reasoning. Again, it's incredibly disruptive, bot-like behavior that's incapable of actually improving the encyclopedia. As stated, your permission requires toleration of people enforcing hard rules that do not exist across a large number of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 23:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::As WP:V points out, it's not only that such material "may" be removed, it's also the case that "Whether ... material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Furthermore, WP:PRESERVE is also policy. On Popcorn, for example, material was removed by @Nyam Nyam Tiger that was covered quite explicitly by sources already listed in the article. Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm with the Bushranger on this one. Unexplained mass deletion is a problem because it's unexplained and overly rapid, not because things were deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Except that's what the complaint is: these edits are unexplained and overly rapid. "I'm removing it because it has a {cn}" isn't an explanation. I might also add, to what I said above, that what V requires is that content be verifiable, not verified. EEng 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: And yet unverified content, especially content that has a CN tag attached and is therefore {{tqq|material that needs an inline citation but does not have one}}, {{tqq|may be removed}}. 'I'm removing it because it has a cn' may not be a very good explanation, but the removal of content that was uncited and tagged with a CN is entirely within policy: {{tqq|Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed}}. Should it have been cited instead of removed? Probably. Was there a violation in doing so? No. Was there an ANI-worthy violation in doing so? Absolutely not. That said, it seems that's not the only concern, given the mention of removing sourced material because the section had an unsourced tag that should have been removed instead, which is a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The issue is their chronic pattern of unjustified, dogmatic behavior. They are not merely bad at explaining their edits, as far as I can tell they are accurately explaining their motivations. They are just bad motivations that are incompatible with site policy. "Uncited" is the actual reason they have expressed repeatedly and at some length. This post would not be made in response to a few edits to a few articles made over a brief period. Again, you are in effect saying we must allow users to enforce a personally-felt rule that uncited material is not allowed at all on Wikipedia. That's absurd. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@The Bushranger, have you had a look at their contributions? I believe these are, aside from talk page discussions, the only edits they have ever made that are not a straightforward removal of content: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Work_It_Out_Wombats!&diff=prev&oldid=1238012894], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zankou_Chicken&diff=prev&oldid=1291825624], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joker:_Folie_%C3%A0_Deux&diff=prev&oldid=1252306188], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phonautograph&diff=prev&oldid=1246389879], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89douard-L%C3%A9on_Scott_de_Martinville&diff=prev&oldid=1246389575], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bubsy_2&diff=prev&oldid=1238968622], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bubsy_2&diff=prev&oldid=1238779389], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maggi&diff=prev&oldid=1238200880]. In their entire edit history, they appear to have added two sentences to the encyclopedia. We don't need to be getting into a philosophical discussion about when to remove uncited content here. This is pretty plainly not productive editing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is the problem with many gnomes: they have no experience in the adult world of actual content editing, and therefore no concept of how a policy like V operates in practice. Bumbling around the project they happen upon a hammer, and after that the world is nothing up a collection of nails for them. EEng 02:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hm, laid out like that, that does point to a problem, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Not a rhetorical question, but I do really want to file better reports here: what about this characterization made it click that was lacking in mine? I tried to emphasize at the top that this behavior was the {{xt|majority of their editing history}}. Remsense ‥ 论 09:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{tq|They seem to believe "citation needed" means "dubious"}} turned out to be something of a red herring. After all, "citation needed" has spread beyond Wikipedia as a way of expressing doubt and our own {{tl|Citation needed/doc}} says {{tq|used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation}} (my emphasis). It's great if people use more precise tags sometimes, but best not assume such tagging doesn't express doubt - and without that assumption, your report might have been effective a little sooner. NebY (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::With regards to how I do things, I consider myself a deletionist. In this case, I remove content of questionable authenticity. The longer a content wears a cn, the more its verifiability comes into question. If I remove something, people can add it back, but they must include a reliable source. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Do you look for citation(s) yourself, for example in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V%C3%A4sterbotten_cheese&diff=1292396790&oldid=1286901327 this pair of edits] where you removed a tagged account of a legend and a mention of price which had not been tagged? NebY (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::As to whether I should find a source myself, or have someone else do it, I think that is optional. Deletionists mainly focus on deleting. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{userlinks|IR-TheFirstSoldier}}

IR-TheFirstSoldier was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IR-TheFirstSoldier&diff=prev&oldid=1290534322 canvassed] by a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A37.155.0.0%2F17 sock] stalker IP to undo my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1290186925]. The sock IP canvassed IR-TheFirstSoldier after failed attempts to undo on their own using a different [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A5.176.0.0%2F18 range], which led to the article being protected.

After all of that, IR-TheFirstSoldier took upon the canvassing request and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1290553020 reverted] me, claiming I didn't give a reason and that my edit was "vandalism". I opened a talk discussion and explained everything to them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1290555604], asking them to not restore extraordinary claims without extraordinary sources and that I clearly gave a rationale. This led to IR-TheFirstSoldier denying the Armenian genocide, three times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1290558533], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1290582348], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Province&diff=prev&oldid=1290698932]:

{{tq|Armenian genocide also claimed not proven}}

{{tq|Im not obligated to accept everything in the history that specific nation or group of people claim to be fact.}}

{{tq|IF everybody agrees that this genocide happened and it is accepted internationally, then we can start to revealing every genocide in history too as fact if the victim countries want to, and not just claims. But somehow armenians love to brag about everywhere about their genocide like it is only they are the victims.}}

It was a bizarre turn of events but here we are. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:The IP user asked my help that someone was deleting sourced texts in this article, i didnt see your explanation while making the edit, which was exactly deleting, and you said its an extraordinary claim with the source itself while its was also claimed genocide by the Armenia against Azarbaijan which what you deleted. Then you accuse me being political and denying Armenian genocide, while you are doing the same claiming. If you explained to me why the sources you say are not trustable and just extraordinary claims instead arguing with me over this and complaining about my edit maybe i would have listened you. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Content dispute, per Toadspike. {{nac}} —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello,

I would like to raise a concern regarding User:Buidhe who has reverted my edits twice on the article Acquired homosexuality, specifically removing a reliably sourced statement about Irving Bieber’s view that homosexuality may develop due to social factors, including family relationships.{{cite news |title=Irving Bieber, 80, a Psychoanalyst Who Studied Homosexuality, Dies |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/nyregion/irving-bieber-80-a-psychoanalyst-who-studied-homosexuality-dies.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=August 28, 1991}}

I have engaged in discussion on the article's talk page, provided additional reliable, peer-reviewed sources (including Statista, Science, Cambridge University Press), and requested specific explanations for removal of any citations.

However, User:Buidhe has responded dismissively, claiming "most of these sources do not mention the article topic" without identifying which sources or addressing the content in context. Despite this, the reverts continue without consensus or clear justification.

According to WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISPUTE, repeated reverts without meaningful discussion are discouraged. This situation appears to have escalated into a content dispute requiring administrator intervention.

• Reverts:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acquired_homosexuality&action=history

• Talk page discussion:
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acquired_homosexuality#c-Buidhe-20221223192300-Python_Drink-20221223190700-DoesNotExist-DiscussionToolsHack

I respectfully request administrator attention to determine if this constitutes disruptive editing and to assist in facilitating consensus on this article.

Thank you.

--Echidna Lover (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since this touches on a contentious subject area, I'm sure editors will look into this complaint but I need to correct one misapprehension on your part. Administrators do not make decisions on content disputes, that is left to editors to arrive at by consensus. We do look at conduct problems which might be involved here. But admins aren't like the final judges on who is right and who is wrong when it comes to different interpretations of content and sources. If we express an opinion, it's as a regular editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's no edit war – buidhe made two reverts of completely different content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acquired_homosexuality&diff=1292999593&oldid=1292913662][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acquired_homosexuality&diff=1293102626&oldid=1293040605], with the second revert coming after both editors engaged in talk page discussion of the content of the first revert. I have weighed in on the content dispute on the talk page. I encourage someone uninvolved to close this thread ASAP. Toadspike [Talk] 07:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{abot}}

I am requesting a partial block of User:Gcenty from mainspace and draftspace until they communicate with us. They are creating a large number of "List of [country name] singers" pages with zero sources. These lists have been draftified by seven different NPPers at this point, yet Gcenty continues to create new unsourced lists, including three today [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Swedish_singers&oldid=1293164910][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tunisian_singers&oldid=1293151976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Yemeni_singers&oldid=1293150770]. They have only edited their User Talk page once, a year ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1209040698], and have never edited an article Talk page; a pblock may be the only way to get their attention and stop them from creating more unsourced lists. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Pings for NPPers who may want to weigh in: @FuzzyMagma@CoconutOctopus@MPGuy2824@QEnigma@JTtheOG@Zzz plant, who draftified these lists; @Dclemens1971, who marked ten as reviewed; @Abo Yemen and @JSFarman, who each marked one as reviewed.

:If the inclusion criteria of the list is "Wikipedia notable" it is possible that sources are not required (hence why some were marked as reviewed), but that doesn't sit right with me. This volume of editing may also require community approval per WP:MASSCREATE. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Toadspike Tbh, I reluctantly marked it as reviewed since I found nothing related to "don't create a list of notable x", plus the list that I marked as reviewed had singers who all have a Wikipedia article, technically meaning that they are notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am willing to mark the list as unreviewed if the criteria that I've used are wrong 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am unsure if these lists, individually, should or should not be marked as reviewed. I don't think you made a mistake here. I am mainly concerned that so many are created so quickly, with no acknowledgement of the problem that caused half of them to be removed from mainspace. Toadspike [Talk] 08:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This is a perennially debatable area, and arguably these list pages don't add much value beyond the categories that already exist. I wouldn't have bothered to create these kinds of lists but I also don't see the point in deleting them once created since WP:SIRS inevitably cover singers of a particular nationality as a group (see e.g. for Cameroonian singers: [https://allafrica.com/stories/202305020070.html], [https://www.okayafrica.com/cameroon-music-artists-new-school/], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Culture_and_Customs_of_Cameroon/hHrDEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cameroon+singers&pg=PA200&printsec=frontcover]). I would suspect for 90+% of them one could find an WP:NLIST pass and that's the basis of my decisions for the lists I marked as reviewed. However, I wouldn't object to any consensus to delete these list pages per WP:CROSSCAT. As for them being unsourced, the requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY are met by the links to the articles themselves. Whether a singer belongs to a particular nationality is generally going to be the kind of uncontentious fact that does not require an inline citation if it's verified in the subject's article. I agree with @Toadspike that @Gcenty should respond to communication, but I also don't see any evidence that Gcenty's talk page received any messages other than automated templates prior to this ANI thread being opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree that notability is likely not an issue, but I don't see WP:LISTVERIFY giving a carte-blanche exemption from providing sources for BLP claims, which nearly all of these are. It says "statements should be sourced where they appear", which I read as saying statements should be sourced in the list itself. Toadspike [Talk] 13:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::WP:NLIST also says that - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - so I've always taken that to mean that at least one source must be provided in the list article that discuss this particular group or set, but that every entry on the list doesn't have to be in that source that discusses the group or set. Having said that, if a reasonable objection to their mass creation of these List articles has been raised with the editor, then they should stop creating them and discuss, not sure if all the standard notifications of articles being moved to draftspace counts, but on the other hand, surely they can see the reason for the multiple moves to draftspace is because it has no sources.

::::::I've worked on several LGBTQ-related list articles that had citation needed tags, for instance, List of LGBTQ rights activists, and I've always provided a source because I feel it is required per our policies and guidelines for List articles, but I've also seen other people that disagree with my interpretation, and that a wikilink to their article is enough. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Somewhere (I think in WP:LISTVERIFY but I don't have time to look it up), there's guidance that uncontroversial statements do not need to be sourced in lists (i.e. "apple" in "list of fruits"). A list including living people is different, but I don't think it's contentious to say that John Doe is a Moldovan singer if the first sentence of his bio says "John Doe is a Moldovan singer," and thus that would constitute verification for purposes of inclusion in such a list. If there was a debate over inclusion, then the topic would be contentious and inline citation would be required. I of course think inline citation is a best practice for verification but not a requirement if it's uncontentious or not one of the four circumstances when it is required.

:::::::Separately, I should elaborate -- it is mildly unfair to bring this editor to ANI without any effort first to explain the concerns. The draftification auto-notices don't explain why there might be a broader problem, and editors with concerns should have posted a note seeking to articulate why so many pages were being draftified and asking for a response before opening a thread here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Socks blocked, along with a number of others - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buissaius1. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, if someone could remove User:CornettoFrancese from the room please. Their sole activity is BLP violations [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Gullifer&diff=prev&oldid=1293192870],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Gullifer&diff=prev&oldid=1293192235],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louise_Gullifer&diff=prev&oldid=1293192087] and trolling talk pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sirfurboy&diff=prev&oldid=1293191549],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CommissarDoggo&diff=prev&oldid=1293193506] etc. —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Done, see also User talk:Croissant202. Bishonen | tålk 08:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC).

{{abot}}