Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trolling again from Hengistmate

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)

{{atop|result=Indef blocking for continued unexplained, unsourced edits without consensus; WP:CIVIL (failure to discuss) WP:BATTLEGROUND.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

For several years, {{Userlinks|Sagatorium}} has made unsourced edits to NFL roster templates and player positions. Several other editors have repeatedly told them that they do not have consensus for these edits which contradict sources. Sagatorium has made other edits that they have been repeatedly informed are against the MOS and are grammatically incorrect. They frequently respond to correction by calling the user trying to help them a "bot" or by complaining about being "bullied" or deprived of their "free speech", and have continued their disruptive editing.

Diffs of users informing Sagatorium that their NFL edits are improper: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=839005221&oldid=838710096] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=839853787&oldid=839420498] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=847693407&oldid=844809057] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=847736478&oldid=847713419] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=861609411&oldid=849070114] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1094329179&oldid=1085678125] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1105578476&oldid=1094333446] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1105929498&oldid=1105805013] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1107910766&oldid=1106486089] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1108832198&oldid=1107971967] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1108832995&oldid=1108832277] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1111522723&oldid=1108832995] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1114091506&oldid=1111522723] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1123823654&oldid=1114139882] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1145039084&oldid=1124532380] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1155118688&oldid=1145059909] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1155119057&oldid=1155118870] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1155635221&oldid=1155631766] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1158614482&oldid=1155635221] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1159801048&oldid=1159400540] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1244051127&oldid=1194800628] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1246016378&oldid=1244069302] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1250621850&oldid=1246016424] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1251856645&oldid=1250621957] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1270589460&oldid=1270353347] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1279979804&oldid=1272541701] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1280961537&oldid=1280454878] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1280963942&oldid=1280961537] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1288104849&oldid=1281032498] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1289083856&oldid=1288523150]

Diffs of users informing Sagatorium that their preferred (lack of) hyphen usage is incorrect: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1270353347&oldid=1269729060] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1272371345&oldid=1271017730] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1279980369&oldid=1279979804] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1280427192&oldid=1280139869] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1290144682&oldid=1289161954] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1290376583&oldid=1290168307]

Sagatorium attacking those who correct them: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1155368506&oldid=1155357429 "Ya'll are just looking to pick fights with me."] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1155411809&oldid=1155381605 "These are picky people who wanna pick and choose the players"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1280005543&oldid=1279980369 "You really are picky about everything"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1280139869&oldid=1280139733 "Ok, bot"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1280454833&oldid=1280427192 "You aren't a person. Leave me alone, bot"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1288119014&oldid=1288104849 "How many times are you gonna be a bully to everyone. Go bug somebody else, you bot"] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1289118687&oldid=1289083856 "You and (user) must be tag teaming to get people that are trying to contribute."] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1290402397&oldid=1290376583 "You people are so picky and are now pro censorship and anti free speech."] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1290557051&oldid=1290419724 "Now I know you're one of them that will gang up on me or whoever else you wanna pick on"]

Sagatorium edits from the last 24 hours improperly changing player positions on NFL roster templates: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Buffalo_Bills_roster&diff=prev&oldid=1291115390] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Washington_Commanders_roster&diff=prev&oldid=1291115457] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Indianapolis_Colts_roster&diff=prev&oldid=1291115531] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Dallas_Cowboys_roster&diff=prev&oldid=1291115659]

Sagatorium edit from the last 24 hours improperly deleting a hyphen: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Matrix&diff=prev&oldid=1291121907]

The community has been extremely patient with this user, but unfortunately they seem to have no intention of stopping their disruptive editing. This is my first time having to do this, so please let me know if I've done anything incorrectly. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I see that {{ping|Hey man im josh}} has been trying to counsel @Sagatorium, so I’ll ping him. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks @Rsjaffe, I've been extremely patient with them, and I've given them so many instances of where they were providing incorrect information... But they've just accused me to of being AI or other silly things. If this user won't communicate properly, and continues to push unsourced information, we don't really have much of a choice but to eventually block them unless they're willing to cooperate with others on the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yet mods get to determine what's deemed disruptive editing. It's subjective. If edits are unsourced, that's fair. In the past I have forgotten to back up some of my edits with a source and some of those times I took the correction and even thanked the mod for correcting me. Now you mods are just picking and choosing how I have responded to mods who were even being picky, bullies that insist on having the way they want. Sourced material is more than fair. Anything outside of that is subjective. Any human has the right to be critical of the mods responding back and questioning if they're real. Mods today could actually not even being human because AI has taken over. I'm learning that maybe I am talking to humans on the other side. Sagatorium (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::It appears that you are describing editors who have to spend the time to correct the errors you keep putting into articles as being 'too picky' and 'bullying' you because you don't think getting things right is as important as they do?

::That may not be the best way to approach being reported here for disruptive editing. From a quick look through all of the warnings on your talk page, I see that you refer to 'depth charts' for your sources very often, but other editors do not consider them to be reliable sources. One possible way forward, instead of complaining that admins are asking you to follow the rules, would be to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and start a discussion there asking if the policy could be changed to allow for using depth charts. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Depth charts are sources of information about teams and players. I'm following them as sources to back up my claims of position changes. Depth charts are put in place to where teams will play their players on game to game basis. These mods are nitpicking that source. Again, it is being too picky. I think I'm challenging these mods and you can deem me as a complainer or a disruption when I'm doing my best to follow the guidelines on this website. Sagatorium (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Noting that Sagatorium has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagatorium&diff=1244051127&oldid=1194800628 informed] that depth charts are generally explicitly unofficial and should not be used as the sole source to change a player's position. OceanGunfish (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'll also add that while depth charts show how a team currently ranks a player in terms of their chances of getting on the field, they don't show whether or not the team considers the player to have an alternative position and can sometimes be too specific. A player who is listed as the team's second-ranked right guard might be just as capable of playing left guard, but they wouldn't be listed there because teams don't list players twice in their depth charts. However, Sagatorium lists them as "RG" because that's where they're listed on the depth chart. It's ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sagatorium: Are you aware that about half of the NFL team's depth charts explicitly state that they're unofficial? It makes far more sense to take the officially listed roster position than to take the position from a depth chart which states it's unofficial. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Sagatorium I looked at your latest template edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Dallas_Cowboys_roster&diff=prev&oldid=1291115659 here]. It doesn't have an edit summary, and doesn't seem supported by the existing links on that template. Can you explain your rationale for that change? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Justin is an outside linebacker in the Cowboys' 4-3 defense. He's too light too play MLB Sagatorium (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This is usually considered original research unless you have reliable sources to back it up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that Sagatorium is still continuing these edits, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cleveland_Browns_roster&diff=prev&oldid=1291348545 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Gaither&diff=prev&oldid=1291354367 here]. OceanGunfish (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for putting this together @OceanGunfish. I think you're right, we've been extremely patient with this user. In many other cases, a user would have been blocked for being disruptive and using WP:OR. I get the connections they're making in some cases, but it's not for us to make these guesses and assumptions. We have to go by what's officially listed in relevant places. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User-blocked}} In the interim, I've partially blocked {{u|Sagatorium}} for 1 week on the template namespace, namely due to continued edits in the same disputed area while this discussion is ongoing. It can be removed/reduced/increased based on continued discussion here. The OPs report on attacks need discussion, as there are WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC) It's also unclear if edits in the article namespace are also an issue.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. For what it's worth, just before the block Sagatorium [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indianapolis_Colts&diff=prev&oldid=1291422326 brought these edits] into article namespace, changing Jim Parker's position at Indianapolis Colts from "OL" to "OT" with no source even though he's listed as both tackle and guard on his page. (Parker has been retired since 1967 so Sagatorium can't even gesture at an unofficial depth chart on this one.) Not to mention the user's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagatorium&diff=prev&oldid=1291430808 message] they left for you on their talk page. OceanGunfish (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::They've been changing positions on a lot of past seasons as well. Fact of the matter is players on the line sometimes play multiple positions over a season. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1958_Baltimore_Colts_season&diff=prev&oldid=1291656384 More] unexplained, unsourced changes to player positions in article space. It seems this isn't going to stop. OceanGunfish (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Noted. There is a concern with main namespace going forward too. Their lack of responsiveness and other behavior also goes against WP:CIVIL: {{tq2|Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions.}} We can see if others have suggestions on how the community should proceed. They've not made more related edits in a couple of days, and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, so a bit of hope that this is resolved. —Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately, there are a bunch more from this morning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabe_Wilkins&diff=prev&oldid=1292293287] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998_Atlanta_Falcons_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292296238] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998_Atlanta_Falcons_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292296293] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Brown_(defensive_back,_born_1975)&diff=prev&oldid=1292296365] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1996_Orange_Bowl_(December)&diff=prev&oldid=1292296802] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Buehler&diff=prev&oldid=1292297071] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Warren&diff=prev&oldid=1292297977] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998_New_York_Jets_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292299465] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998_New_York_Jets_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292299585] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1999_New_York_Jets_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292300327] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dionte_Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=1292300653] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2001_New_York_Jets_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292301165] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_New_York_Jets_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292301406] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1997_Carolina_Panthers_season&diff=prev&oldid=1292302706]

:::While it hasn't been discussed as much here, the deletion of hyphens is still continuing too: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1996_Orange_Bowl_(December)&diff=prev&oldid=1292295687] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1996_Orange_Bowl_(December)&diff=prev&oldid=1292296802] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1996_Orange_Bowl_(December)&diff=prev&oldid=1292295687] OceanGunfish (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::A partial block was too generous. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::He responded to the temporary block with a personal attack accusing the admin of dictatorship and censorship, and saying the rest of the admins are "evil".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagatorium&diff=prev&oldid=1291430808] I'm mystified why they were not given an indef at that point. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Bagumba: Noting that he continues to modify player positions... seemingly failing to recognize and respect that there are players who have played in two positions. {{diff2|1292372325}}{{diff2|1292371936}}{{diff2|1292371575}}{{diff2|1292371235}}

::::::I think, at this point, we should move forward with an indef. They're making articles less accurate, refusing to listen to feedback, and not providing sources for the changes that they've been making. It's been going on for years now, and there's no signs of it getting any better. The disruption needs to be stopped. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Background Sagatorium's previous block was an edit warring case, similarly over a football position being changed from the generic defensive back to a more specific position. They were partially blocked on one article and one template page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was surprised to see that that was me that made that report. It seems that their issues regarding attitude and WP:CRYSTALBALL have been a problem for quite some time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=M1rrorCr0ss indef'd, and cleanup of their edits appears to be complete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{atop|status=Blocked|{{nac}} AI-generated article spammer blocked, cleanup effort currently ongoing. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 09:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

User:M1rrorCr0ss was just here above for undiscussed page moves, but the problems go deeper.

• 10th West Bengal Assembly - Five of six sources don't go anywhere, the sixth (#4) doesn't go to the claimed content.
• 11th West Bengal Assembly - Of six sources, two link to nothing, two link to content that doesn't match the cite
• 12th West Bengal Assembly - All sources go to different material than claimed to link to. The four links to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly official page go to member lists for other assemblies.
• 13th West Bengal Assembly - The first cite actually exists and goes to relevant material. None of the other five do.
• 14th West Bengal Assembly - None of the six links go anywhere.

CX Zoom requested that M1rrorCr0ss not use AI in ChatGPT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AM1rrorCr0ss&diff=1291419727&oldid=1291407015]. M1rrorCr0ss assured that they were using Grok, not ChatGPT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AM1rrorCr0ss&diff=1291420597&oldid=1291419727]. M1rrorCr0ss then stated that they would {{green|take a break and rethink how I contribute — no AI, just me}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AM1rrorCr0ss&diff=1291421631&oldid=1291421388]. They also admitted using AI in articles when {{green|when the section(s) are missing or creating the full infoboxes. Of course, in replies to the "big" editors}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AM1rrorCr0ss&diff=1291422474&oldid=1291422109].

And it's not just words. Gorkhaland Territorial Administration#Geography is clearly AI-written, easy to tell even before seeing 100% on GPTZero.

I don't think M1rrorCr0ss should be in article space right now, and think they should be restricted to making edit requests until they learn how to contribute sourced information, not merely mass generate low-quality AI-written articles that pass muster on the surface until you realize they're sourced from nothing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think M1rrorCr0ss should be posting anywhere if all this is true. Since thy have already acknowledged they are using AI text generation tools, I've blocked them for one week to allow all this to be evaluated properly. I suggest an indefblock as a result of this, and a mass-rollback and mass deletion of all their edits and article creations. They also seem to be still blithely unaware they are doing anything wrong - we need to make policy on this very clear, as this looks likely to happen more often in future unless it is stopped. — The Anome (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:A sidenote: this editor has fewer than 500 edits, not the 2330 they claimed in talk [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/M1rrorCr0ss&target=M1rrorCr0ss&offset=&limit=500],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M1rrorCr0ss&diff=prev&oldid=1291441384]. It gets ever harder to AGF here, and this looks more and more like a breaching experiment. — The Anome (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::: 2,449 live edits according to [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/M1rrorCr0ss XTools]. Is it wrong? (I agree with everything else you wrote.) Zero^talk 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is there a speedy delete tag for AI-generated bullshit? If not, could one be added? Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::@The Anome Respectfully, I am confused about that part, as the link you provide does show several pages of edits on my end, and [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/M1rrorCr0ss their XTools page] does count 2,331 edits on English Wikipedia. Of course, that doesn't change anything about the blatant AI use problem. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You are quite right, I mis-read the contributions output. — The Anome (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with The Anome. Having seen more and more of this over the last few months I have come to the conclusion that we need to ban AI from LLMs completely from both articles and discussions. Anything less that this seems to be used to justify its use. This is probably the most urgent issue facing Wikipedia, because the horse is bolting right now and it is getting harder and harder to get that stable door shut. LLMs have their place, but that is not on Wikipedia. Anyone who wants to know what an LLM has to say about a topic can ask it directly without using Wikipedia as an intermediary. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's interesting watching the editor in question trying to weasel their way out of this on their talk page. They are quite an experienced debater, and not the naif they claim to be. At this point, I suggest an indefblock and total reversion of all their contributions: do others concur? — The Anome (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Absolutely. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The Anome, I saw where you sent their articles to AFD. It's unfortunate that we have to clog up the system discussing obvious garbage like that. A speedy delete for using AI would, pardon the pun, speed up the process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think we have consensus here that these articles are a vandalism/hoax combo, so I will now speedily delete them as such. Since we have a horrific 2000+ edits to clean up now, the more page deletion of pages by them the better, at this point. — The Anome (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree. Given they all scrape the 'pedia, the potential for multi-layered AI citogenesis is very real and not a little scary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not to mention model collapse. I'd also mention that AI-slop-bombing would be quit an effective way to poison Wikipedia and undermine it as a source of truth. — The Anome (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::In a very real way, far more damaging than blatant childish vandalism. Someone changing the name of a prominent politician to Farty McPoopface will be caught and fixed nearly instantly. A plausible sounding sentence that coudl be real but is completely hallucinated can silently fester. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that Wikipedia now has well-resourced adversaries who would like to take it down, or, from their point of view better, to discredit it. Stopping this now should be high on not only our priorities, but also those of the WMF. I've blocked User:M1rrorCr0ss indefinitely - this sort of behaviour should result not only in blocking but a WP-wide community ban. — The Anome (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I really feel for the admins who patrol the unblock requests and have to sort through a billion requests that {{green|acknowledge that [my] past edits may have violated Wikipedia's policies}} and promise to {{green|contribute in a constructive, policy-compliant manner and ensure [my] edits adhere to the standards expected}}. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User:M1rrorCr0ss has made over 2000 edits to Wikipedia, and it looks like a significant number of them were LLM-generated bullshit (see above). We now need to do a mass cleanup of the damage, and a short enough time has passed that simply reverting every article back to the last known M1rrorCr0ss-free revision, and simply deleting the article if M1rrorCr0ss created it, should do the job. All their page moves also need to be reverted. If all they've done is to create an infobox, that would also suffice.

Having said which. this is an absolutlely massive chore.

Where should this be orchestrated, and are there any automated tools that could help? — The Anome (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have been busy offwiki recently but before the above thread had been opened and closed, I had been keeping an eye on this user and seen some DATEVAR changes which I had cleaned up. Didn't think to spotcheck any of their added sources. Willing to help with cleanup in whatever way I can. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::They added dates in MDY format in an Indian article because they had been using Grok all along. I wonder if any of their sources actually work. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The only answer at this point is mass-deleting everything they've ever added, and it's a huge amount of work just doing that. — The Anome (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I had been cleaning up their page moves since yesterday. But since there's so many of them, I could only handle half or so. I will handle the rest today. But, a mass-move-revert tool restricted to admins (and possibly page movers) will be welcome. Currently, I had been fixing all of them by hand. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have reverted most of their moves, and while at it I reverted their edits on such pages. I did not touch around a 7-8 moves that were actually constructive and abided by Wikipedia's guidelines. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The central project for cleaning up AI-generated content is Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup (WP:AIC). I've posted a message on the WikiProject talk page at {{slink|WP:AINB#Request for cleanup assistance at ANI}}. — Newslinger talk 12:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot! I'll take a look at the situation this evening if there is still stuff to clean up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:It took a while, but I think almost all of M1rrorCr0ss's edits in article space have been reverted. I'm not sure how to approach redirects that they created, so I've left those alone. --bjh21 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

It is unfortunate that I have to bring this forward, but I believe User:Skitash’s pattern of behavior warrants administrator attention.

Despite prior discussions and a resolved RSN confirming that certain sources (of the same nature as the ones recently removed) were reliable ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-WRYSM-20250512193900-ElijahUHC-20250512071500]), User:Skitash has continued to remove Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) and/or Tifinagh script from Moroccan administrative region articles:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tangier-Tetouan-Al_Hoceima&diff=prev&oldid=1291513057] removed User:176.3.37.247 addition.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fez-Meknes&diff=prev&oldid=1291513073] removed User:Lankdadank addition.

This occurred even after consensus had been reached-just a few weeks ago-to include SMT in the lead and infoboxes of articles of the very same nature, since Morocco recognizes it as a co-official language alongside Arabic.

The same user previously carried out a mass removal of Tifinagh script from relevant articles without consensus. These contribution lists, for example, are all from a single day-one day-all purged:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&target=Skitash&offset=20240314121835]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&target=Skitash&offset=20240314115434]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&target=Skitash&dir=prev&offset=20240314121819]

I had hoped this was done in good faith. However, the behavior has persisted, including repeated deletions of sourced additions by other editors, and wikilawyering around multiple Wikipedia policies to justify removals. For example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oriental_(Morocco)&diff=prev&oldid=1289258702] and

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figuig&diff=prev&oldid=1281293299] which was originally added by User:Aguzul.

In the earlier-referenced talk page discussion of oriental region, the user repeatedly shifted from one WP rule to another to oppose inclusion, even when the sources had already been deemed reliable ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_476#Is_the_Moroccan_government’s_website_a_reliable_source_for_Tamazight_(Tifinagh_Script)_names_of_Moroccan_regions?]).

This ongoing disruption appears to violate WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:IDHT and possibly others, and is stalling legitimate improvements based on policy and prior agreement. I believe further administrator input is necessary to determine how to proceed constructively, as the same user has continued this behavior despite sourced additions being made by multiple editors. ElijahUHC (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:This report concerns a content dispute and does not belong at ANI. I have acted entirely within Wikipedia policy.

:{{tq|"Despite prior discussions and a resolved RSN confirming that certain sources (of the same nature as the ones recently removed) were reliable"}} Yes, the RSN affirmed that primary sources can be used in some circumstances, but it also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_476#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250507235800-ElijahUHC-20250507225800 emphasized that] secondary sources are needed to establish which Tifinagh name is correct. In the case of Oriental (Morocco), we were dealing with multiple conflicting primary sources that presented five different Tifinagh names for the region. Without a secondary source confirming which is accurate, adding any of them amounts to WP:OR. I've already explained that editors are not supposed to interpret ambiguous primary sources or decide which name is "correct," which is precisely why secondary sources are essential. Notably, you have repeatedly changed your stance in that discussion as to which Tifinagh name is supposedly correct,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250510172600-Boynamedsue-20250510172000][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250512071500-Boynamedsue-20250512054600] which only shows the lack of verifiable consistency.

:{{tq|"The same user previously carried out a mass removal of Tifinagh script from relevant articles without consensus"}} That content was removed over a year ago and was entirely unsourced WP:OR. It was all was added by 85.148.129.62, a disruptive block-evading sock of the LTA known as Lala migos. Removing unsourced material added by a sock was appropriate.

:This has never been about removing Tifinagh arbitrarily. As myself and multiple editors have pointed out, verifiable and reliable secondary sources for Tifinagh names are rare,[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%87%E2%B5%94%22][https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%87%E2%B5%87%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%94%22][https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%87%E2%B5%94%22,%22%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%87%E2%B5%87%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%94%22] and the lack of consistency makes it extremely difficult to include them without violating WP:NOR.

:I have cited MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV and WP:OFFICIAL for good reason: the former asserts that only "a single equivalent name in another language" may be included in the lede, while the latter states {{tq|"The preference for common names avoids several problems with official names: ... Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official."}} Skitash (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I just checked the "purge day" contributions. No? I see a lot of things you removed that weren't even from said user. Here are some of the first I opened:

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zagora,_Morocco&diff=prev&oldid=1213723416]

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midar&diff=prev&oldid=1213666451]

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinejdad&diff=prev&oldid=1213722700]

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ksar_es-Seghir&diff=prev&oldid=1213665495]

::As for the rest, I’ll leave it to the administration if they wish to read the article talk pages and the rest, since I believe they already show the entire issue. I apologize for not arguing each point individually, but I’ll do so if necessary-just trying to avoid making this incident notice too long to read. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This looks like a content dispute rather than a behavioral issue. R3YBOl (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I appreciate your input, and I understand how this could be seen as a content dispute on the surface. However, I respectfully submit that this has gone beyond mere editorial disagreement.

::::While content is the trigger point, the pattern of behavior is the real concern:

::::Persistent reverts of sourced contributions from multiple editors, even after consensus discussions and RSN determinations were made.

::::Use of policy (e.g. WP:OR, WP:OFFICIAL, MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV) in a selective or shifting manner to justify removals, even when sources were comparable to those already discussed and accepted.

::::Ignoring or undermining consensus reached just weeks ago on similar articles, without reopening those discussions or seeking broader input.

::::Historical removal of large volumes of material without consensus, some of which was not from the block-evading user cited, as confirmed in my follow-up post.

::::If this were simply a disagreement over a single article or interpretation of one guideline, I'd fully agree this is just a content dispute. But the ongoing, systemic nature of the removals, lack of deference to community decisions, and dismissal of sourced input from multiple editors have created a disruptive editing environment. Editors feel stonewalled, and progress has stalled, does each user needs to name the same user who reverts these edits and go over it in each article for a new rule each time?

::::I'm not seeking sanctions - only asking whether administrators can facilitate a productive way forward, especially if standard DR methods are being circumvented or rendered ineffective due to entrenched behavior.

::::Happy to take this to a more appropriate venue if you advise it - I just want to ensure the underlying concern isn’t minimized due to how it's framed. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for clarifying, but I still don’t see evidence of misconduct here. The concerns raised appear to stem from policy disagreements and sourcing standards, not behavioral issues. R3YBOl (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|"Persistent reverts of sourced contributions from multiple editors, even after consensus discussions and RSN determinations were made"}} The RSN discussion did not affirm that the Tifinagh names in question were verified. It stated that government sources can be reliable for official names, but also emphasized the need for secondary sources to determine what is correct - and in this case, such sources are absent.

:::::{{tq|"Ignoring or undermining consensus reached just weeks ago"}} I'm not sure what "consensus" you're referring to, as multiple editors challenged the primary source you were relying on.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-2601:340:8200:57C0:9191:CC48:5125:90DC-20250429194700-ElijahUHC-20250429122300][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-M.Bitton-20250507170200-Tifinagh] But even if some level of agreement was reached on Oriental (Morocco), consensus is not universal. It applies to that article.

:::::{{tq|"Historical removal of large volumes of material without consensus"}} Those removals happened over a year ago, involved unsourced content, and were made largely by a block-evading LTA sock. No concerns were raised at the time. I was enforcing WP:BLOCKEVADE and WP:NOR appropriately, as would be expected of any editor. Skitash (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are not required to cherry-pick a single comment and selectively interpret it to dismiss the RSN discussion. The RSN reached a broad consensus-as seen in the thread I previously linked-that government sources are reliable for use in articles specifically about administrative regions designated by the same government. This includes official names of Moroccan regions, where Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) in Tifinagh is used alongside Arabic. Despite this, you have continued to remove such content-even after participating in that very discussion and being one of the users who initiated it.

::::::Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, I urge you to revisit the linked Talk page and scroll down to the section where the issue was resolved. It was clearly established that both the government source and the secondary academic source are interchangeably reliable. If one is not available, the other is still valid for use in infoboxes and leads. This conclusion was supported by multiple editors and is publicly documented. I will not be repeating this if you reference another comment that was mostly a "concern" which was discussed later on the page.

::::::Additionally, your removal of Tifinagh content spans a wide range of articles and contributors. These edits were not made by sockpuppets or blocked users, but by legitimate editors across different years-some as early as 2021, and others in 2024. On a single day alone (as shown in the linked contribution history), you removed over a hundred instances of Tifinagh on that day. This does not include the many additional removals you’ve made before and after.

::::::Furthermore, I have personally experienced situations where you nominated an article for deletion immediately after a Tamazight addition was made, despite having never edited the article beforehand. A clear example of this behavior is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karima_Gouit. The deletion nomination came directly after the inclusion of Tamazight content, raising a concern from me about your pattern of behavior.

::::::I would like to remind you of WP:NOTBURO — Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you believe there are issues with the accuracy or sourcing of a specific translation, the appropriate response is to raise the concern on the article’s Talk page or to help improve the sourcing collaboratively. It is not acceptable to unilaterally mass-remove content-especially from one specific language-based on speculative or shifting criteria. In many of these cases, your removals targeted sourced material.

::::::You have been reminded multiple times that government sources are considered reliable for government-designated names. Yet you continue to violate WP:IDHT by reverting these additions on articles where prior consensus had already been reached in one of the very same nature, these edits you removed come from users you have previously debated the topic with.

::::::This behavior is disruptive and runs counter to the principles of consensus, collaboration that Wikipedia relies on, it is not a place where you wikilawyer as many reasons (and move from one to another) to invalidate those additions. ElijahUHC (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|"you nominated an article for deletion immediately after a Tamazight addition was made"}} This is baseless. The article in question was rightfully nominated for deletion because it failed WP:GNG; there were virtually no reliable sources, and numerous editors duly voted to delete it. This report is trying to reframe normal policy-compliant edits as disruption. As @R3YBOl pointed out, this is clearly about content, not behavior. This just reads like an attempt to escalate content disputes to ANI because some edits didn't go your way. Skitash (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• If this discussion is truly about behavior, then I think it's worth looking at where the actual pattern is: the OP's contributions.
  The vast majority of their less than 400 edits show a clear single-purpose focus, centered on repeated additions of unreliably sourced Tifinagh text (in many cases anachronistically added to articles about ancient figures)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maghrawa&diff=prev&oldid=1250270214][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kusaila&diff=prev&oldid=1250242395][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kahina&diff=prev&oldid=1250239663][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barb_horse&diff=prev&oldid=1251299914][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berbers&diff=prev&oldid=1258252449] while simultaneously removing Arabic[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yennayer&diff=prev&oldid=1248833988][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Ifran&diff=prev&oldid=1250265052][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maghrawa&diff=prev&oldid=1250270214][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kahina&diff=prev&oldid=1250239663][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Atlas_Tamazight&diff=prev&oldid=1290675090] in Morocco-related articles.
  They've also engaged in WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying editors aligned with their views,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aguzul&diff=prev&oldid=1291521493][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lankdadank&diff=prev&oldid=1291521417] (this includes stealth canvassing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berbers&diff=prev&oldid=1258504995]) and have made efforts to cultivate a group of editors aligned with their perspective through a WikiProject (which gives the impression of WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Monsieur_Patillo&diff=prev&oldid=1250096133][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aurasion_Rex&diff=prev&oldid=1250246146][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WRYSM&diff=prev&oldid=1291482196][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Ruffy98&diff=prev&oldid=1258041772][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Berber_Rayyan&diff=prev&oldid=1257750329][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muasis&diff=prev&oldid=1261120542]
  Looking at this, it becomes hard to not view their account as an WP:SPA. It also raises concerns of WP:ADVOCACY, since they seem to be editing to promote a particular political/identity-based POV.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berbers&diff=prev&oldid=1250066937][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berbers&diff=prev&oldid=1258504995]
  Additionally, this is not the first time the OP has reported me (and others, such as @M.Bitton) for simply disagreeing with them. These repeated reports across numerous noticeboards, including ANI, AN, MOS, DRN, ARV, AFD, etc, began to resemble WP:FORUMSHOPPING.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive365#The_topic_on_Amazigh,_berber,_wiki_page.][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1250277747][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1250289790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1250095130][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1251344371][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1258355513][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1291521155][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karima_Gouit#c-TahaKahi-20241009061800-Skitash-20241008201100] Skitash (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I must respectfully address the characterizations made here, many of which appear to misrepresent both my intent and my editing history.
• :'''
• :your claims on WP:SPA and “single-purpose editing”'''
• :Yes, I have a strong interest in Berber- and Tamazight-related topics - this is not unusual. Many editors contribute based on areas of expertise or cultural knowledge. That alone does not violate any guideline, and Wikipedia encourages editors to improve underrepresented topics. I'am new on wikipedia and developing, and I have made edits in other areas as well, though naturally fewer (less than 400 edits). The claim of being a WP:SPA is not a policy violation in itself and is being misused here as an insinuation
• :your claims of “unsourced or anachronistic” additions
• :Many of the edits you cited as problematic were open to further sourcing if flagged. No efforts were made by you to tag or improve them, only to delete. If any particular edit is genuinely problematic, I would welcome a talk page discussion or template tagging, not wholesale removal. If errors exist, collaboration-not deletion-is the solution. I continue to raise this issue.
• :your claims that I removed Arabic?
• :The diffs cited do not demonstrate bad faith removal of Arabic. In some cases, I raised valid MOS and language policy questions, particularly in language-related articles, not place names. None of the removals were arbitrary, and in fact, I have never removed Arabic from dual-language lead sections when both languages are official or contextually valid. These accusations seem exaggerated or lacking context. Please check the articles he listed, they are berber-specific.
• :WP:CANVASSING / WP:MEATPUPPETRY
• :The users I notified were those who had previously edited or expressed opinions on the same topics (berbers), The two i raised as the main last issue i reported in the first place, those users are the ones you've deleted their additions, i notified them, not hard to understand. This is consistent with WP:APPNOTE on appropriate notifications. Also, attempts to revive or participate in dormant WikiProjects are not evidence of bad faith or “recruiting” That suggestion is speculative and misrepresents community-building efforts as somehow malicious. Please anyone reading can go see for themselves who I have invited and read the report and judge if they are to be included or not.
• :WP:ADVOCACY
• :I stated that Berbers are not Arabs? that is a culturally and academically recognized position, what is the poltical issue here? I’ve not edited articles to insert political claims, but to include official language forms and naming - supported by Moroccan law, official government sources, and consensus in prior discussions. That is not "advocacy"; that is source-based editing in line with WP:DUE and WP:RS... What are you on about?
• :WP:FORUMSHOPPING
• :Issues were moved across noticeboards due to either process recommendations, requests by other users, or when initial venues proved unproductive (check them). This is not “shopping” for a favorable outcome, but seeking resolution when needed, as per WP:DR.
• :Reports
• : Yes, I’ve submitted reports - and yes, so have "you", infact you went as far as to report me for "sockpuppetry" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1230215279], and again you reported me for sockpuppetry a second time [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YassinRi&oldid=1250566478]
• : That’s how dispute resolution works. Reporting conduct is not retaliatory when it's done with clear grounds, and I’ve only done so when I believed behavioral guidelines were being disregarded. As I hope you have done with your reports.
• :These accusations appear to be an attempt to divert attention from the core issue: a repeated pattern of policy violations, including WP:IDHT, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR. I remain fully open to collaborative editing, compromise, and clarification where necessary. However, the continued behavior, and now the deflection through broad off-topic accusations, only reinforces the need for administrator attention.
• :This is not the first time that the discussion has been sidetracked to the point of becoming unreadable or unresolvable. For those interested, I encourage reviewing the prior report he cited as well as the relevant Talk page discussions, particularly Talk:Oriental (Morocco). ElijahUHC (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is not about other user’s behavior but about yours. Your explanations so far have been weak. 2A02:3037:46C:362A:49F6:5159:A80A:8770 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment For the records, other experienced editors have expressed concerns about {{noping|Skitash}}'s editing : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Question_about_the_Battle_of_Firaz].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:It’s really interesting that in that case it was again @Skitash and the only user supporting him so far on this @R3YBOl how does that come? 176.6.55.173 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Question_about_the_Battle_of_Firaz discussion] may explain why that's the case. --Aguzul (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment concerns have been raised about Skitash's good faith regarding the removal of content in Berber, particularly following the discussion on Oriental (Morocco)'s talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tangier-Tetouan-Al_Hoceima#c-2A02:3037:46C:362A:49F6:5159:A80A:8770-20250523164600-2A02:3037:46B:B31C:2C57:7F38:D05:6733-20250522190000] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tangier-Tetouan-Al_Hoceima#c-2A02:3037:46B:B31C:2C57:7F38:D05:6733-20250522190000-Tifinagh]. --Aguzul (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Note R3YBOl, who was previously called out in a canvassing incident with Skitash ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Question_about_the_Battle_of_Firaz discussion]), has commented on this report in a manner that presents it as a content dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1291532317 diff]). This may constitute further canvassing. --Aguzul (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Within 20 minutes of my last comment on this report, my (sourced) edits on two separate pages were reverted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massa_River_%28Morocco%29&diff=1292062788&oldid=1291922662 diff1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massa,_Morocco&diff=prev&oldid=1292062602 diff2]) with the edit summary "failed verification." --Aguzul (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Note More removals have occurred since the initial notice:

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tangier-Tetouan-Al_Hoceima&diff=prev&oldid=1291780372]

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Hoceima&diff=prev&oldid=1292127720]

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tangier&diff=prev&oldid=1292127315]

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massa_River_(Morocco)&diff=prev&oldid=1292062788]

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tétouan&diff=prev&oldid=1292127335]

:::These, along with the edits noted by Aguzul[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Aguzul-20250525010800-Aguzul-20250525000200], He repeatedly shifted between different policies to justify each revert-citing MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, WP:OFFICIAL, even claiming "failed verification" and in some cases providing no explanation at all. These reverts targeted edits by different users, and at no point did Skitash initiate a discussion on the article’s talk page.

:::-

:::Also, Skitash seems to misunderstand that Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) is a single, nationally standardized language. In a past objection, he shared personal views[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Morocco/Archive_1#c-Skitash-20240405170400-NAADAAN-20240405161500], citing unrelated issues in Algeria and claiming standardization is impossible due to dialectal variation-ignoring that SMT is standardized by IRCAM. It's also worth noting, without making accusations, that he has repeatedly mentioned M.Bitton in this context for over a year[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Morocco/Archive_1#c-Skitash-20240405170400-NAADAAN-20240405161500] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kahina#c-Monsieur_Patillo-20241113211900-Skitash-20241113204500] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Numidia#c-Numidea-20240117151900-M.Bitton-20240117151200] (there are more), aswell as collabariting with him beyond it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakshouka#c-M.Bitton-20240522160700-LEvalyn-20240521231600] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_Sahara/Archive_7#c-M.Bitton-20231101160900-IOHANNVSVERVS-20231101160500] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_world#c-Skitash-20250208190800-Abo_Yemen-20250208182200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Algeria/Archive_3#c-M.Bitton-20231227194000-M.Bitton-20231227184100] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regions_of_Morocco#c-Skitash-20231216203700-Ideophagous-20231216092600] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abdelaziz_Bouteflika#c-M.Bitton-20230626143900-SashiRolls-20230626140400] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Fellaoucene#c-Fr4you-20230901141500-Need_to_be_deleted.][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956–1957)#c-M.Bitton-20250422152100-Meluiel-20250422144200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_identity#c-Aldij-20240606133300-Different_types_of_Arab_identity] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American–Algerian_War_(1785–1795)#c-Nourerrahmane-20250307203100-Kolno-20250307192200] . despite M.Bitton currently facing his own conduct issues. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_M.Bitton] who previously also emailed editors during his block to make edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#c-Liz-20250310032200-Mztourist-20250310030500]. This is a point to note as he mentioned M.Bitton again during this report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Skitash-20250522190200-ElijahUHC-20250521191600] ElijahUHC (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Just to clarify, I wasn't canvassed. I was already reading another section on ANI regarding a different user. While refreshing the page, I came across this report and decided to take a look, especially since I’m familiar with Skitash as a generally constructive editor who operates in good faith. While reading user's report or concern, it didn’t seem to rise to the level of a serious conduct issue in my view. R3YBOl (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I’ve read it, people suspect you of canvassing there yes. However, I prefer to assume good faith on your part. That said, it is quite questionable to be mentioned in a different dispute or talk page as possibly cooperating with another user, and then appear in an administrative dispute involving that same user on an entirely different subject.

::::-

::::However as i was writing this, I saw that you have even asked Skitash for his discord [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skitash#c-R3YBOl-20250514123800-Skitash-20250514121300] ElijahUHC (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Even if I did ask for someone’s Discord, there's nothing inherently inappropriate about that. Editors sometimes reach out off-wiki for clarification, brief collaboration, or to ask a simple question or request. As long as on-wiki policies are respected. R3YBOl (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, but given [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Question_about_the_Battle_of_Firaz this thread] this rather Sounds like meatpuppetry.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:15, 27 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)

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)

• {{Pagelinks|Azercell}}

I think this covers multiple noticeboard topics, so I'm posting here hoping it works as a catchall.

Over the past year, various IPs and users have tried to erase unflattering information from the article on Azercell, an Azerbaijani telecom. User:Thenightaway first added [https://www.occrp.org/en/project/corruptistan-azerbaijan/offshores-close-to-president-paid-nothing-for-state-share-of-telecom this OCCRP investigation] into the telecom's ownership by the ruling family in January 2024 (diff). Since then, there have been many attempts at removing those sentences by different accounts, notably:

• May 1, 2024: (diff) by {{IPuser|93.88.83.227}}
• Jul 11, 2024: (diff) by {{Usertcl|Almazique23}}, with the edit summary "Azercell’s public image is very crucial issue for us as it has direct impact on how our customers, partners and other stakeholders perceive us."
• Jul 11, 2024: (diff) by {{IPuser|93.88.84.171}}
• Dec 14, 2024: (diff) by {{IPuser|176.216.124.116}}
• Dec 29, 2024: (diff) by {{Usertcl|Sofi289}}
• May 11, 2025: (diff) by {{IPuser|5.191.90.6}}, with the false edit summary "The article doesn't mention any reference that would confirm the veracity of such statement ..."
• May 12, 2025: (diff) by {{IPuser|5.191.112.36}}, with the false edit summary "Removed information not justified by any reference."
• May 16, 2025: (diff) by {{Usertcl|Farhadibra}}, with the edit summary "OCCR supported references are strongly biased and are the subject to political propoganda."

Some or all of them presumably have a conflict of interest. For example, User:Almazique23 works for Azercell, judging by the edit summary above, and all but one of the IPs geolocate to Azerbaijan (with some of them having Azercell ISPs).

The latest tactic is to assert that OCCRP is secretly a state-funded mouthpiece of the US government, which actually has basis: see [https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/021224/hidden-links-between-giant-investigative-journalism-and-us-government this Mediapart investigation]. Normally I would say User:Farhadibra has a point, but considering the page history I think this is a bad faith argument. His LLM-generated talk page message (diff) inaccurately states that it was replaced with a neutral source covering the same topic, mis-applies Wikipedia policy, and does not mention Mediapart's conclusion that {{tq|the quality of [OCCRP's reporting] is not in question here|q=y}}.

What is the move here? Is this an RSN problem, COI problem, SPI problem, or something else? Iiii I I I (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the response. I want to clarify my position and address the points raised.

:First, I’d like to emphasize that I am not making a blanket claim that OCCRP is a "state-funded mouthpiece" or questioning the quality of its journalism in general. I fully acknowledge that OCCRP has produced important investigative work, and the Mediapart article rightly emphasizes this.

:However, Wikipedia policy requires not only that a source be of high quality, but also that it be appropriate for the context in which it is used, especially for politically sensitive or potentially defamatory statements.

:My key concerns are:

:Funding and Perceived Bias:

: According to OCCRP’s own funding disclosures and public records, more than 50% of its budget is funded by USAID and other Western government agencies. This is a matter of public record, not conjecture.

: Furthermore, in a White House-published document outlining U.S. foreign policy strategies, OCCRP is explicitly mentioned as a tool for advancing "pro-democracy narratives" in target regions. That raises fair concerns about editorial independence in cases where their reporting intersects with U.S. strategic interests.

:I will make changes in order to restore information which is aimed to provide objective POV, please consider that.

:Wikipedia Policy:

: Per WP:RS, state-funded sources can be used with attribution and caution, particularly when they report on topics related to their funder's geopolitical interests.

: Also, WP:NPOV advises avoiding undue weight from sources that may have a conflict of interest — especially when used to make assertions of wrongdoing or political connections.

:The replacement source I added was selected because it does not have known direct affiliations with state-funded agencies. I'm open to further improvements if someone suggests a more balanced or higher-quality citation — but using a source funded by a government that has a political interest in the topic should at least be discussed carefully.

:I am happy to revisit the wording and ensure neutrality, but I think it is not unreasonable to expect attribution or context when using such sources.

:Kindly ask you to review the following document where it is being mentioned that OCCRP work is comprised of spreading disinformation for political reasons. Testimony by Michael Shellenberger for a hearing on “Eliminating Waste by the Foreign Aid Bureaucracy” before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on February 13, 2025 Farhadibra (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely pblocked Farhadibra from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also, I would like to raise a specific and well-documented concern regarding the editorial neutrality of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). In 2025, OCCRP named Indonesian President Joko Widodo "Person of the Year in Corruption." This designation was made without any formal charges, court rulings, or independent investigative corroboration. The methodology reportedly relied on anonymous internal polling, including Google Forms.

:The announcement sparked serious criticism from Indonesian civil society, political analysts, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Political scientist Faisal Chaniago of UIN Jakarta called the designation "unscientific, biased, and damaging to the country’s image without a legal basis." Even liberal-leaning Indonesian media questioned the objectivity and purpose of the report.

:Source: Okezone News (Jan 1, 2025) – "Penilaian OCCRP pada Jokowi Disebut Tidak Ilmiah dan Bias"

:While OCCRP has made notable contributions to investigative journalism, this incident illustrates that its editorial decisions are not immune to political bias or methodological flaws. In contexts where neutrality is paramount—especially in politically sensitive articles—OCCRP should not be treated as an unquestionable source, and its use should be carefully scrutinized under WP:RS.

:I also want to note that the removal of OCCRP-linked content from the article in question did not introduce promotional language or favor any particular party. On the contrary, it brought the article closer to a neutral point of view, in line with Wikipedia’s core principle of WP:NPOV. No claims were added that glorify or sanitize the subject; the removal simply prevents undue weight from being placed on a source with contested neutrality. Farhadibra (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{user|Ecrusized}}

So they're not stopping even after getting p-blocked for 48 hours in violation of unilateral changes [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1187#User:Ecrusized_and_unilateral_changes]. Guess what, they're still repeating the same tendentious behaviour by outright removal [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291777471] of well established satellite imagery, verified by multiple independent media houses. No sign of WP:BRD but falsely cites it in edit summary to remove [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291777471] the table by misleading editors. I had previously proposed topic ban but WP:NOTHERE indef is now a favorable option. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is something of an inaccurate description of the conflict. Ecrusized has been trying to remove images that contain non-neutral headers as parts of them. Specifically they refer to specific locations as terrorist camps. This is a matter that has been disputed - the characterization of the sites as terrorist camps is the POV of the Indian authorities and should not be communicated in Wiki voice. Text hard-coded into an image does not allow us to insert the nuance necessary to demonstrate that the character of the sites described in those images is disputed.

:

:This is an insertion that has been disputed on WP:NPOV grounds by at least three editors, including myself, however there has also been quite a lot of pinging editors on the talk page with a clear aim of putting a finger on the scales of the discussion regarding this inclusion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1291786012&oldid=1291784751] and more than a little bludgeoning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&action=history] (not by Ecrusized, I should note). I would suggest that both @Rightmostdoor6 and @Truthprevails999 (who has done much of the aforementioned bludgeoning at article talk) should both be cautious about raising AN/I complaints that appear motivated by WP:BATTLEGROUND reasoning. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::And I would suggest that {{u|Truthprevails999}} should change their username if they want to be taken seriously. I haven't checked their edits specifically, but I have not in 18 years of editing come across any user with "Truth" in their name who comes anywhere close to abiding by WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've already indeffed them, so chalk another truth username onto the tally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::There's also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wareon, opened by Rightmostdoor6 as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That leans me to a boomerrang TBAn, not forum shopping as such, but a clear misuse of notice boards to try and shut down opposition. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The issues raised regarding user Wareon on AE are concerning and raised by other users as well. There's no deliberate attempt to weaponize noticeboards to "shut down opposition". Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} I agree that Rightmostdoors6 is showing battleground mentality to get rid of his opponents, be it this thread or the one on WP:AE,[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Wareon] where admins suggested boomerang for Rightmostdoors6. It was unwise to file this report on ANI at this time for Rightmostdoors6. His claim that issues were "raised by other users as well" is false because every other user also agreed that the report was totally unwarranted. {{ping|Rosguill}} - Considering that this report was filed in spite of the fact that there is already a rough on that AE report for a boomerang it speaks volumes of their battleground mentality against his opponents. Orientls (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Those images seem to have some NPOV issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, also there looks to have been canvassing, POV pushing and general lack of civility and AGF from SPA on both sides, might be time to lock the page, and PP then talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::For an example of what I mean by battleground activity, this is the response I got to warning Truthprevails999 regarding their canvassing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1291792326&oldid=1291791745] Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:And I will add most of the SPA's are clearly wp:nothere accounts. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would concur. And would suggest that for many of the editors doing severe talk page bludgeoning a topic ban would likely improve collaboration. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Lets just PP the talk page, and see who goes away. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That is a pretty extreme measure but it might honestly be warranted here. That page is a mess and it's frankly hard even to know where to start with resolving a lot of very heated disputes that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and everything to do with competing nationalisms. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have never been engaged in bludgeoning for pete's sake. {{U|Simonm223}} You need to revisit the policy pages if you think these progressive comments [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291770913][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291784551][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291784697][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291794133] are bludgeoning. There's no need for talk pp as well, maybe semi. No proper justification given for XC pp. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think you will note that it was (the now blocked) Truthprevails999 who I said was responsible for most of the bludgeoning. That's why I used the singular tense {{tq|who has}} in my statement. I did say that I believe your complaint to be motivated by a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I stand by that assessment. You were far too hasty escalating this matter to AN/I against someone you seem to perceive as an ideological rival. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Rightmostdoor6}} This is not even the correct noticeboard for this. Ecrusized (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::They have just been blocked, but I doubt that will work, as there are still a shed load of like-minded SPA's on the page, and more will show up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Considering they admitted to having a second account for "tests and personal editing" I would say blocking them alone won't even prevent them from editing unless a CU is run. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've been basically a hair's breadth away from imposing either autoconfirm or XC protection on the talk page, but have held off each time I've investigated because I was able to find recent comments by IPs that were actually sound (although ironically often in contention with autoconfirmed accounts being less constructive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Rosguill, most of today's topic starters were non-autoconfirmed users [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-2409:40C0:20:575:8000:0:0:0-20250522162000-Regarding_Reuters_Rafale_fact_check:_It_was_not_shot_down][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-39.62.128.108-20250523081400-Protected_edit_request][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-Rosguill-20250523150300-Bias][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-2405:201:4001:419C:4939:81E4:C46D:AB1-20250523143300-Rafale][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-2405:201:4001:419C:4939:81E4:C46D:AB1-20250523143100-al_jazeera][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict#c-Rosguill-20250522144000-Indian_Government_Propoganda_Page]. OTOH autoconfirmed+ users were actively reducing the backlog by querying with them. I still don't think there's any basis for XC protection. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That talk page feels like the WWI battlefield in Belgium. Lots of back and forth over a very little area (minor points compared to the big picture). I think that there would be no great loss in restricting the conversation to extended confirmed users. Yes, improvements would slow down, but it would be no great loss to Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I too support an EC protection for Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict, and related talk pages, for (say) 1-3 months. Right now the talkpage is such an unreadable mess with same issues being raised/bludgeoned in redundant sections, that even good-faith editors are spending most of their time tending to the latest fires. Abecedare (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have gone ahead and placed Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict under ECP for 1-month as an individual admin action. I haven't examined {{u|Ecrusized}}'s conduct per se, and so am not closing this ANI report in case some admin deems further action necessary (the OP, though not Ecrusized, will be affected by the ECP). See also my comment at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diff=1291842895&oldid=1291840241 the somewhat related AE]. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Finally, we can have consensus without those sockpuppets. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Well regarding {{u|Ecrusized}}, I think these aspersions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Ecrusized-20250524162900-Reliability_of_Indian_media_sources_in_2025_India–Pakistan_conflict_coverage][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Ecrusized-20250524194600-Gotitbro-20250524181700] could really be problematic. Heraklios 20:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Exactly. Along with that, their undiscussed [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291777651 removal] of the image was concerning as well. Despite I having clearly stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict/Archive_7#c-Rightmostdoor6-20250523094500-PunjabiEditor69-20250523073900] that [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/09/india-sends-warships-towards-pakistan-after-more-clashes/ sources] do, in fact, confirm the movement of Indian carriers during the event. On Template:2025 India–Pakistan conflict infobox, further disruption can be seen [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict_infobox&diff=prev&oldid=1291778056]. Considering the series of problematic behaviours by the reported user, making boomerang demands on me (OP) certainly won't be helpful. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Gonna be honest those {{tqq|aspersions}} at RSN aren't just aspersions, they're straight-up racism in the first, and the attempt to walk it back by claiming "it was just calling out COI" in the second diff is disingenuous at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It is genuine, although there may be a misunderstanding. There is a difference between racism, and perceived COI, which is what I was trying to point out. I have also emphasised that I am not from that region because of severe personal attacks and accusation made against me a day earlier. (Accusations of adding Pakistani language source, which is why strongly emphasised that not only do I speak that language, nor have I ever been there etc.) The mentioned attacks. I did not point that out because I am racist against Indians or Pakistanis. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It doesn't matter from which regions do editors belong, so you need to stop repeating this. What you posted on RSN was exactly a racial jab to good faith editors and trying to defend it citing COI isn't gonna help. The topic page link is not any kind of personal attack, nor the OP is issued any personal remarks. Heraklios 15:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::There was no misunderstanding. This is not remotely COI, and the heavy implications that Indian editors should not edit Indian topics is, in fact, racist. Doubling down on this at ANI is the opposite of a good look. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I'm not doubling down on anything because I have not said that Indian editors should not edit Indian topics, I have said that it may be considered COI, afterwards of which I was informed that COI only involved personal, or business dealings (WP:WHYCOI). Of course you can spin it off as racism if you wish to do so. Ecrusized (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{re|The Bushranger}} If you want me to apologise or confess for something which I did not do; I am not going to do that. I am really bothered by your sentence "Doubling down on this at ANI is the opposite of a good look.". Do you want a false confession from me to admit that I was being racist? Do you want me to say something like: "Oh I'm sorry I was being racist". Because I am not. Also I think the fact that you calling be a "racist" not stop is indeed offensive towards me, because what I said was a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'm sorry, but I don't see how any reasonable person can otherwise take {{tqq|editors who have Indian flags on their user pages, as well as those whose account contributions are entirely focused on editing Indian-Pakistani conflict, and other subjects related to India...I don't think these users should be allowed to comment on this...I am yet to see a single editor so far, who is not Indian that has supported using Indian media sources.}} (emphasis in original). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Such a paragraph from me will not be repeated again in the future, now that I have been informed of WP:WHYCOI. My mistake was to presume that WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST would extend to editors from a country. Ecrusized (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• ::{{re|Rightmostdoor6}} You clearly have strong views towards editors who make changes that you don't like. You've accused me of not being here to build an encylopedia. (Despite the fact that I have made thousands of major contributions to several different topic areas. By contrast your contributions are almost entirely limited to this one single article, and battleground with other editors at that). Two editors have thanked me for my edit which you describe as being a permanent block reason. And two other restorations of that same revert have been removed once again by two separate editors. The fact that you've open an incident noticeboard for this, instead of a edit war notice, shows that you're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia policies. Ecrusized (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::First of all, this is the right venue to raise concerns regarding your editing behaviour and I would make it clear that I'm not an SPA, it wouldn't take too long to verify my claim, have not made more than 30 edits out of my 300+ on Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict. Thanking editors could not be meant for endorsement. You have crossed the line again, abide by WP:NPA. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I never said you were a SPA. I never said your "Thanking editors could not be meant for endorsement neither." Ecrusized (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Noting here for the record that the OP has been indefinitely tbanned for battleground conduct. See this AE request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given the fact that the editor wasn't extended confirmed, I don't see how this discussion was allowed to go on as long as it did with their participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shahshagoose Shahshagoose] appears to be solely dedicated to purveying disruption and vandalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1289631121 tries to insert an insensitive HOAX into a conflict article]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1289643166 self-admits with no remorse]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291713324 adds personal attacks in the form of racist stereotypes] (knowing full well what he is doing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291713445]). Other not here behaviour: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291712442], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1291712055] ("stinky admins" etc). I think we need a block here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes true @Gotitbro Truthprevails999 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC) Note:Possible sock already blocked for disruptive editing. Struck. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I see no attempts to discuss any issues with the user on their talk page. (...and no required notification that this post was made.) --Onorem (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Forgot the notice, posted. From the replies and content of the user's comments, it is apparent that he is trolling and trying to not to hide it. I would not like to discuss racism and trolling with vandal users. Gotitbro (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::While the comportment in many of these diffs is definitely sub-standard I would suggest you are over-egging them by doing things like calling a single talk page comment an attempt to {{tq|insert an insensitive HOAX into a conflict article}}. I would recommend that contentious topic pages are places where a more dispassionate approach to discussing behavioural issues would be apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That is exactly what it was, the name originated as a trolling campaign on X etc. and was limited to that space with no coverage beyond it. That it was brought here says much about what the user was/is trying to do.

::::Dispassionate, yes, but with the recurrent disruptive behaviour and I repeat being completely aware of what he is doing, we need a break. Gotitbro (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:See the thread above about Ecrusized for additional context; that talk page is a battleground mess. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Content dispute|1=If discussion on the article talk page doesn't resolve this, the next step is WP:DR, not ANI. ANI is the last resort, and does not adjuiciate content disputes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hello, and thank you for helping me in address this issue. On the Wikipedia page for Haz Al-Din, {{User|Leninscat}} has continued to insert their own ideological perspective, violating NPOV, and continuing even when asked to stop on the talk page of Haz Al-Din. They have ignored everything that I have said that establishes pretty basic stuff like "yes, there can be mention of the American Communist Party having an elected official because even non-partisan elected officials can count. See the Wikipedia page for the Green Party." Despite me acting in good faith and trying to resolve this with Leninscat, they have completely ignored what I have actually said, gone on ideological diatribes, and reversed my edits which were just me fixing the page, thus failing to reach consensus, and vandalising the page. They have also accused me of being a conspirator of the American Communist Party. They refuse to listen to reason from me.

One other example is that they kept on changing the name of the American Communist Party on Al-Din's page to "American Communist Party Inc." This is just bizarre though, as other political parties like Reform UK have previously been corporate entities before, but it did not change their in use party name at the time. Any party is referred to by its organisational name.

Additionally, Leninscat has only edited on Wikipedia pages about Haz Al-Din or directly related ones. ApricotAvalanche037 (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• At the minute this looks like you are simply informing of a content dispute, which is not something you should be doing. If you are coming to ANI, you need to provide diffs of edits where you think Leninscat has broken the rules and an explanation which relates them to a specific policy of wikipedia. It looks to me like you would be better to go down the route of a Request for Comment on the specific differences you have on content of Haz al-Din related pages.

:Having had a quick look at the pages in question, it gives me a sense of nostalgia to see that the American left of the 2020s has the same penchant for circular firing squads as the British left of the 1980s and 1990s.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Whatever Leninscat has been doing here is not vandalism, and should not be described as such. The only wrongdoing by anyone here is to edit the article before a conclusion has been reached to the talk page discussions. I have no knowledge of the content dispute, but do know that Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable sources say about the subjects, not Wkipedia editors, and I know to my cost that communists can be very conservative. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see vandalism here either but I am putting the Haz page on my watchlist - looks like it could use some TLC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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)

{{User|Ydlp19}} has been persistently making unsourced changes to articles relating to South Asian soccer, and also ignored warnings on their talk page telling them their English is not up to the standards of the English Wikipedia. They also do not seem to know how to use their talk page. Likely a case of WP:CIR.

Diffs include but are not limited to: {{Diff|oldid=1291889805}} {{Diff|oldid=1291890266}}

»Gommeh 16:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Gommeh, over a period of about 20 minutes today, you posted 3 warnings on their User talk page AND opened this ANI complaint. Although they don't respond often on their talk page (or those of other editors), that is not much time to react to your messages. There was no need to immediately come to ANI after posting multiple warnings to them, they haven't even been editing on the project for the past 12 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is true, but given the warnings this person has received over a decent amount of time, I figured there's no way they haven't seen the notifications on their talk page unless they were violating some sort of rule; hence why I believed coming to ANI was justified. I just wanted to make sure an admin was aware of what was going on. Additionally, other editors voiced concerns about this editor years ago but it seems like nothing was ever done, see User talk:Ydlp19#English language in prose, User talk:Ydlp19#Message and Following template guidelines for player articles. The user had more than enough opportunities to check their talk page for concerns about their edits raised by others. In other words, this has been going on with Ydlp19 for years. Additionally, someone else (@Cenderabird) spotted the issues and wanted to fix them, but must not have felt that their English was good enough to fix Ydlp's mistakes either, so they came to me via my talk page at 11:12pm CST (at least eight or so hours before I even looked at the edits, since I was sleeping). »Gommeh 19:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We native speakers of English are usually privileged to speak the predominant language of business and further education, but that privilege comes with the downsides of everyone wanting to cummunicate in English rather than their native language and many people overestimating their ability with the language and being over-sensitive to any criticism. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's true I suppose, and I think that's also part of the problem with Ydlp. They overestimated how good they were at English. If they had taken the time to read their talk page, they could have come up with a solution, e.g. using machine translation to participate in discussions here, or asking a native speaker to proofread for them. »Gommeh 19:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:(non-admin comment) I warned this user and have corrected some edits in Swiss football articles specifically. The user makes some constructive edits with general data information, but all substantive content added uses poor English, and even some edits from years ago, as the OP mentioned. I have yet to get any response from them. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::The fact that you haven't gotten any responses from them is to be expected I think, given they haven't responded to my or @Liz's messages either. They have made several edits since then, which to me means they've had more than enough of an opportunity to go on their talk page and discuss the issues we have with them. At this point I'd say we should apply WP:CIR or block them. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Pblocked|{{nac}} User is now blocked from:

• Article and Draftspace
• Making any pages in any way
• Uploading files

Mass cleanup of their LLM-edits seems to have been done, and the section is seeing a sign of derailing as well. Closing.

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Coolcolney}}

This user has added a lot of obviously AI-generated content - replete with fabricated sources - to articles (or created AI-generated articles) today. Examples:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilkhawthlir&diff=prev&oldid=1292024075 This edit] to Bilkhawthlir
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Phaileng&oldid=1292017445 Creation] of the article West Phaileng (I have since trimmed the fabricated or unrelated references and the information cited to them; I request a review of whatever is left, since I have not checked everything)
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mat_River,_Mizoram&oldid=1291992417 Creation] of the article Mat River, Mizoram (I have since trimmed the article)
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aizawl_Adventist_Hospital&oldid=1291978064 Creation] of the article Aizawl Adventist Hospital, which was earlier deleted at AfD. I checked the three sources cited in the article and found that they did not exist

And so on. I encountered this user's creations in course of new pages patrol, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcolney&diff=prev&oldid=1292007563 gave them a notice] after cutting out most of the Mat River article's content. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mat_River,_Mizoram&diff=prev&oldid=1292010491 response] to was add back more AI-generated content (with additional non-existent references) to the article. I then gave [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACoolcolney&diff=1292022205&oldid=1292007563 a second notice], which was followed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilkhawthlir&diff=prev&oldid=1292024075 this edit] - again, clearly AI-generated. At this point I found that the editor had made several large edits of this style today, and spot checks on a couple of articles indicated that those edits had also been made using a LLM. I issued [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolcolney&diff=next&oldid=1292022205 a final warning] at this point, which was followed by the user blanking their talk page.

While I wait for a response from Coolcolney, I want to bring this user's edits to the attention of the community, due to the large volume of potentially problematic edits, so that the content they have added can be checked properly for issues. Due to the large number of edits, I am unable to check all of them myself. JavaHurricane 20:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is a longstanding user with several thousand edits who suddenly started making major changes to articles today. I checked one (Special:Diff/1292022419) and found they were using Wikipedia as a reference and included non-existent links, which I assume are LLM hallucinations. Sounds like they found LLM and are liking it. I will block from p-space: communication is mandatory, and to prevent further damaging edits. I've invited them here to discuss. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::User just blanked their talk page, including the warnings and block notice from today. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's looking worse and worse. They made a huge number of very large edits and many page creations in the last 2 days. Not humanly possible to personally write that much stuff. I've tagged as LLM and moved to draft the new articles and reverted what I could. There are a large number of suspicious edits that cannot be reverted, as someone else has edited the page in the interim. Can anyone go through and review those edits? I believe there is a lot of damage remaining. I've also blocked user from draft and from page moving until we get good answers. Blanking their user page is not a good answer. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have reviewed (and reverted) some additional edits; but plenty remain to be checked. JavaHurricane 22:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I reverted a few, there seemed to be one particular village that kept coming up, along with a tourism board link. And yes, that's an astonishing number of edits for two days. Does the rollback tool work better for this? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I rolled back every significant edit that I could. When there are subsequent edits, rollback is unavailable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is how wikipedia ends if we don't introduce automatic LLM checking. The amount of damage one person has done here in a day is astounding.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :+1, as the kids say. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Wikipedia hasn't been able to correctly implement 2fa in over a decade. They'd be much better off providing a byte limit for new users than joining the AI race. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks to all who have worked to revert these edits. If it were possible to ban someone twice, I would do that in this case.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Posthumous execution. EEng 05:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Nitroerg542 blocked for a week by Cullen328, whom I quote here: {{tqq|Editors are reminded that our role is not to push an ethnonationalist point of view but rather to cooperate and collaborate to create content written from the Neutral point of view. That is a core content policy and adhering to it is mandatory and non-negotiable.}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Greetings. User Nitroerg542 has been actively reverting mine and another editor's edits and engaging in grossly uncivil behavior on talk pages. He claims I alongside another other editor, Governor Sheng are engaged in a "fascist and genocidal campgain of dehumanizing the Bosniak nation along with genocide denial, teaming up with other fascist and genocidal Wikipedia editors under the fake guise of promoting NPOV." Both mine and his edits I do not believe violate any policies in the slightest, and the edits he accuses of promoting "genocide denial and fascist Wikipedia vandalism" are simply most of the time edits to opening paragraphs to, for example, follow MOS:CRIMINAL. Thank you. Srpska1992 (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you explain how [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ratko_Mladi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1292095275 this edit] follows MOS:CRIMINAL? Ratko Mladić is a convicted war criminal and his war crimes are a large contributor to his notability. He got more coverage while on trial, being convicted and during the appeal, than he did as a military commander. Arrest [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/serbia/8538195/Ratko-Mladic-man-behind-Srebrenica-massacre-arrested-in-Serbia-live-coverage.html], conviction [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13559597] [https://www.news24.com/mladic-verdict-a-momentous-victory-for-justice-un-20171122], conviction upheld [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bosnian-serb-military-leader-mladic-will-hear-final-verdict-genocide-case-2021-06-08/]. Therefore calling him a war criminal in the WP:LEAD is WP:DUE per MOS:CRIMINAL.

:ANI isn't a place where editors side with whomever made the report (although it seems that way sometimes). I think you are at least partially in the wrong. I haven't checked your other edits, Ratko Mladić's name just jumped at me as he is known worldwide primarily because of his war crimes. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Greetings, and thank you for the response. I do think the half of the opening paragraph covering his conviction is enough. Both of the examples in MOS:CRIMINAL perfectly fit the article. Both of these:

::"Booth was a noted actor of his day, but his theatrical fame is far eclipsed by his notoriety as an assassin."

::"Fualaau was not notable prior to her crime, but establishing her profession first gives helpful context."

::The former helps plenty. Ratko Mladic was not well-known globally as commander of the VRS prior to his arrest, but establishing his role in the war first gives helpful context.

::I would also like to add that this is only one of many edits made by him that fall under my request. If you go deeper into his edit history, you can see that the vast majority of his edits fall under WP:NOTHERE and WP:POVPUSH.

::"ANI isn't a place where editors side with whomever made the report (although it seems that way sometimes)."

::And I am not presupposing that it is.

::Thank you. Srpska1992 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I only looked at Ratko Mladić because the name stood out to me. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slobodan_Praljak&diff=prev&oldid=1292021254 this edit] you remove "war criminal" descriptor from the first sentence, but Slobodan Praljak is referred to as a "war criminal" by WP:RS in their own voice [https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/europe/slobodan-praljak-hague-death/index.html] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42163613] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42204587] [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/war-crimes-hearing-halted-ex-bosnian-croat-general-drinks-poison-n824841] [https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/europe/slobodan-praljak-hague-heart-failure/] [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-42166760] (and so on).

:::I'm not saying you're in the wrong or Nitroerg542 is in the wrong. This is a content dispute and looking at two (admittedly cherry-picked) examples, Nitroerg might have a case for some of the edits.

:::On the other hand, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nitroerg542&diff=prev&oldid=1292077032 this comment] by Nitroerg is not OK and at the very least they should be warned/reminded of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Srpska1992 main purpose in Wikipedia appears to be whitewashing details about the wars in former Yugoslavia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Eagles_(paramilitary)&diff=prev&oldid=1279742022][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miroslav_Radi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1279756856][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilina_Vlas&diff=prev&oldid=1281789332] A tban from the topic area is at least required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::You cite three summaries rewording article content (that mind you retain information on war crimes perpetrated by the groups) and see this as proof that my main purpose on Wikipedia is "whitewashing details about the wars in former Yugoslavia." These edits do not "whitewash" their crimes in any way. In addition, the content of these edits mostly come from the Sebrian Wikipedia's pages on the respective topics. While I do not attempt to invoke a whataboutist argument here, may you also look at Nitroerg's edit history? Srpska1992 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Defining someone as a war criminal goes against MOS:CRIMINAL, no question about it. Mary Kay Fualaau who was known to the public exclusively because of her felony was shown as an example.

Ratko Mladić or Slobodan Praljak might be known to some people as exclusively war criminals. However, both of them were notable military commanders, and in case of Praljak, post-war businessman. If this rule is applied to Fualaau, it should be applied even more to Mladić and Praljak.

On the other hand, @Nitroerg542 accuses editors rather lightly and clearly has some agenda here. Governor Sheng (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slobodan_Praljak&diff=prev&oldid=1292074926 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hakija_Pozderac&curid=41898872&diff=1292076313&oldid=1291993898 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Muslims&curid=72259816&diff=1292076061&oldid=1291980848 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurija_Pozderac&curid=49972942&diff=1292075438&oldid=1292057001 this] edit by @Nitroerg542: "GovernorShang is engaged in a comprehensive fascist campaign of covering up the Ustasha genocide and dehumanizing Bosniaks", "Shang and Srpska - your fascism and genocidal intent is poorly masked by your purported NPOV attempts", "GovernorShang is engaged in a comprehensive multi-page campaign of dehumanization of the Bosniaks along with genocide and war crime denial of Croatia fascists during the Bosnian War. His edits are not in good faith and follow a Croatian fascist pattern" and "fascist Ustasha GovernorShang engaging in a campaign of Bosniak nationhood denial"... Really? --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:If you observe GovernorShang's edit history, almost all of the recent edits are focused on denying the Bosniak nationhood by reducing them to a religious (muslim) community - an old, widely known and washed up tactic of fascist actors in the region that have perpetrated at least two genocides against Bosniaks, because by denying the Bosniak nationhood, you deny their right to a nation state i.e. a homeland - this has been done throughout the 20th century and continues to this day as regional actors continue with their hostile campaigns.

:I will not maintain that I didn't make errors in terms of Wikipedia rules, but I do ask for some understanding because as a Bosniak, with a very intimate knowledge of all these decades if not centuries long attempts of the destruction of the Bosniak nation, I have zero tolerance towards those narratives that have contributed to mass deaths, genocides, rape campaigns etc.

:The same goes for Srpska1992. Just observe his concerted campaign of covering up the existence of a notorious rape camp Vilina Vlas near Višegrad. Just because fascist Republika Srpska authorities after the war are doing their best to cover up the crimes of mass rape, opening up the spa after the war without mention - this would be like opening up a WW2 concentration camp as some other legitimate business, as an attempt to cover up the genocidal crime. I'm not even going to comment on their other edits - the campaign of Bosniak nationhood denial, war crime and genocide coverup its unmistakable.

:In any case, I express the most severe suspicion and doubt in the purported neutrality and good faith of aforementioned users. I remain convinced that they are abusing Wikipedia as a propaganda tool in a campgain of dehumanizing the Bosniak nation especially towards Western audiences, another washed up tactic aimed at the destruction ot the Bosniak nation. Nitroerg542 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

All three users informed of WP:CT/EE. Sesquilinear (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have blocked {{u|Nitroerg542}} for one week for personal attacks and harassment, specifically for repeatedly calling a fellow editor "fascist" and "genocidal". My block does not mean that I consider the behavior of the other parties in this dispute blameless. Ethnonationalist POV pushing is a plague on this encyclopedia. The question of how much weight to give a criminal conviction in the opening section and the lead of a biography of a living person is fraught, especially in cases of ethnically motivated warfare. Editors are reminded that our role is not to push an ethnonationalist point of view but rather to cooperate and collaborate to create content written from the Neutral point of view. That is a core content policy and adhering to it is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Rangeblocked for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ipvandal|2607:FEA8:FE00:7DEF:0:0:0:0/64}} has been adding non-existent future dates/events {{diff|prev|1291990612}} {{diff|prev|1291666844}} {{diff|prev|1288473638}} {{diff|prev|1285996843}} {{diff|prev|1288031132}} to children's entertainment/theme park/animation related articles. I attempted to warn them here, and were previously warned here, but no dice.

I previously monitored this user on an adjacent /64 {{ipvandal|2607:FEA8:4E5C:C500:0:0:0:0/64}} (same editing pattern, this range stopped editing when new range started) and previously warned them there, but also no dice.

Requesting a /64 block of the active range. Parksfan1955 (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:TIMETRAVEL? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::The content inserted by the user isn't verifiable even as a rumor. This diff {{diff|prev|1288473638}} when quote searching "Universal Cartoon World" only links to this fandom article about fictional theme park ideas. [https://disneyparksfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Universal_Cartoon_World]. Or this edit {{diff|prev|1285247765}} adding ship names for future Disney ships. "Disney Hollywood" and "Disney Paradise" show zero related results when quote searched. {{diff|prev|1281681474}} adds "Mickey's Birthday Carousel" as an upcoming attraction in 2028, which again returns zero results. Parksfan1955 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:FE00:7DEF:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Drbonjing}}

Account is being used only for promotional purposes. WP:NOTHERE and have a conflict of interest of their own to advance anti-Members Church of God International activism. Their username is a reference to a founder of the new religious movement Daniel Razon (DR), and "bonjing" is a moniker which could be pejorative. User has only created attack pages to Bagong Henerasyon and other tangentially related pages (Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr. and DV Boer Controversy) by synthesizing valid reliable sources along with their personal commentary and self-published blog site https://www.mcgiexiters.org/

They are blind to their own conflict of interest, that it goes both ways not just to anyone perceived to be affiliated with BH and MCGI. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not a waiver to freely add content to expose corrupt politicians, businessmen, or cults.

I have cleanup their edits on Bagong Henerasyon. To their credit they have proposed excluding the MCGI Exiters source on a "proposed draft" but I've told them it won't do cause of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHariboneagle927&diff=1291291829&oldid=1291290976 diff on my talk page] - May 20). Also they started an older ANI on May 20 when they tried having the Bagong Henerasyon blocked from editors who are perceived to be pro-MCGI/BH. Nathannah has rightfully told them off for trying to shoehorn MCGI Exiters which is a non-neutral source which depends on Reddit and other testimonials from former MCGI members.

However the creation of Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Gerard_Nazal_Jr.&oldid=1291837070 diff]) and DV Boer Controversy ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DV_Boer_Controversy&oldid=1291840188 diff]) both on May 25 still insisting on including the MCGI Exiters citations demonstrates intent to expose the relevant subject matters using MCGI Exiters exclusive expose or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

The user's response on the Bagong Henerasyon talk page therefore could be concluded to be a compromise cause the user concerned "got caught". They still continue with their WP:POVPUSHING using poor sources (MCGI Exiters) and support their own editorial commentary using valid sources (WP:SYNTH)

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Would like to add that I think they may have used an LLM to write that ANI as well. Haven't looked at their edits so can't say the same about them though. »Gommeh 14:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{opblocked}} {{np2|Drbonjing}} indefinitely for not being here to build an encyclopedia and for persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy. The repeated use of undisclosed LLM-generated text in articles and talk page discussions falls under two examples of WP:NOTHERE: {{xt|"General pattern of disruptive behavior"}} and {{xt|"Dishonest and gaming behaviors"}}. The emoji in Special:Diff/1291291455 is a telltale sign of LLM usage, as is the excessive boldface and misuse of title case in Special:Diff/1291835491. — Newslinger talk 18:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Archive top

|status = Blocked

|result = IP has been blocked Editz2341231 (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC) {{nac}}

}}

{{Userlinks|77.75.148.97}}

Hello, I noticed this user adding unsubstantiated dates for Ukrainian elections ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Next_Ukrainian_local_elections&diff=prev&oldid=1292173913], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_local_electoral_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=1292173595], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_national_electoral_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=1292097501], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_national_electoral_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=1291791759], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_national_electoral_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=1291791635], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_national_electoral_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=1291791513], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_national_electoral_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=1291191037]). A similar thing happened with a different IP at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#IP_user_re-adding_unsubstantiated_dates_for_next_Ukrainian_elections. This user also has several warnings on their talk page about vandalism to other articles, particularly Ukraine-related articles such as United News (telethon) and Leonid Kuchma.

Thanks! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked for three months because they have been blocked before and are hitting the edit filters with unexplained number changes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

{{atop|1=Blocked for a year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{User|213.172.241.121}} was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=166311696 blocked on 7 December] for 3 months for disruptive editing, with the last edit made before their block being to blank a large section of Antisemitism in Russia with an edit summary of {{tq|"fixed error"}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1261618604]

Shortly after the expiry of their block the IP returned to "fix more errors". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_resistance_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1281683210 Removal of sourced content], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aleksei_Bach&diff=prev&oldid=1281797762 removal of mention of Jewish ancestry], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikhail_Mil&diff=prev&oldid=1283284412 removal of mention of Jewish ancestry], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Savely_Kramarov&diff=prev&oldid=1283796205 removal of mention of Jewish ancestry], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995)&diff=prev&oldid=1291788862 removal of sourced content], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995)&diff=prev&oldid=1291789154 removal of sourced content], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1292197627 removal of sourced content]. All with edit summaries of {{tq|"fixed error"}}. IP was warned[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.172.241.121&diff=prev&oldid=1283444598][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.172.241.121&diff=prev&oldid=1291788884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.172.241.121&diff=prev&oldid=1291789188] after the expiry of their block three times, then made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union&diff=prev&oldid=1292197627 this edit] today, earning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:213.172.241.121&diff=prev&oldid=1292197948 another warning]. The IP appears stable, I think another longer block would be a good idea here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Almost all edits were reverted; most edits violate NPOV--emphasizing Russia over other nearby countries, obscuring Jewish heritage, etc. Blocked one year. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Archive top

|result = Nothing more to do here, as OP acknowledges the guidelines for talk pages. They are allowed to remove block messages. Editz2341231 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC) {{nac}}

}}

{{Userlinks|Jh1096}} This user, who has been blocked, is repeatedly removing the block notice from their Talk Page. They are currently blocked for 31 Hours. They ought to be blocked indefinitely, and it needs to be the case that they cannot edit their own Talk Page. Pibx (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Weirdly you left out the part about how you’ve been edit-warring on that talk-page with no valid justification. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Pibx, users are allowed to remove block messages or other warnings from their own user talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Block messages can be removed, declined unblock requests cannot be. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 02:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Pibx, you are edit warring. Normally, I'd block a user for the behavior you've shown. However, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and I can see where this plausibly was the mistaken actions of a new user believing they were reverting improper behavior. However, if you revert once more on @Jh1096's talk page, you should be blocked.

:I strongly recommend you read WP:EW, WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING. Furthermore, I suggest you step away from interacting with @Jh1096 for a while, as after reading that talk page I suspect some emotions have also entered into your decision-making. That happens to us all. The key is to remove yourself from that situation when that happens, and not return to it unless you have to, and only after you've calmed down. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::I do apologize. Now that I think about it, it was I who was edit warring. And yes, some emotions did enter my decision-making. I can see what you're saying. I'll stay away from Jh1096's talk page. Clearly, when the Editor were posting things, I responded, though I didn't need to. As you said, I ought to remove myself from such situations. About reporting to ANI, yes, I am new. I started editing Wikipedia just this month. I thought that what Jh1096 was doing on their Talk Page was improper. Now that I've read WP:EW, WP:OWNTALK, and WP:BLANKING, I see that what the Editor did, in terms of removing block messages and other warnings from their Talk Page, was well within the Guidelines. It does make sense to me. And I hope I can keep it in mind going forward. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. And if you see anything else that I do that is not proper, or if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. I want to learn so that I can contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Thanks again. Pibx (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

:Right off their block, they're disrupting again, this time in a loop of restore/undo on Cartoon Network (Japanese TV channel) and Disney Channel (Japan); I'm assuming since they're at 482 edits, they're trying to get to extended/autoconfirmed status as some kind of 'invincibility' to continue to disrupt. They aren't doing anything technically wrong here so I don't know how to warn them (and from their last incident I assume they won't hear me out anyways). Nathannah • 📮 16:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just taking a quick glance and seeing their repeated edit/manual revert loops on those two articles, all it does is spam the edit histories of the both articles, and is adding more to their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Jh1096 filter log]. Apologies for the ping, but {{U|Drmies}}? This seems to be a continued behavior of disruptive editing just after your recent block against them, even after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jh1096&diff=prev&oldid=1292254470 this comment of your's]. Magitroopa (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I indeffed them to prevent further disruption. I also disabled automatic EC rights, so if they successfully appeal the block, they'll still have to show a good editing history before requesting the EC right. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you {{U|rsjaffe}}. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User @AE182 has been making questionable edits to the Operation Herof 2.0 page. I edited and asked him to come talk with me in the talk page where we could come to an agreement [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Herof_2.0&diff=prev&oldid=1292234315 [1]] but they did not come and proceeded to revert my edits and not cooperate.

What is even more stranger is that two other accounts by the name of @123btm and @12345btm made the exact same edits as AE182, and are new accounts made at the time of the edits. Which makes me suspect that there could be a case of sock puppetry here. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Herof_2.0&diff=prev&oldid=1292196617 [2]][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Herof_2.0&diff=prev&oldid=1292196617 [3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVagabond (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Editor blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

There is some vandalism happening in article Medical abortion. I undid two changes, but I have to go do some IRL stuff, so I cannot keep monitoring it. Can some admin protect the article with "Pending" or something? Or maybe block the vandal-editor? [PS: I'll be off WP for several hours, so I cannot immediately reply to questions.] Noleander (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:There were two promotional edits (which you reverted) by a single editor who has been blocked. I've added the article to my watchlist temporarily. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{Rangevandal|2A00:23CC:E806:E01:0:0:0:0/64}}

All edits from this IP range are changes to East London articles that started on 10 May. They're mostly boundary or definitional changes about which area of London a particular street or building lies in, focused on a small part of East London. No sources or edit summaries are given, and so far 18% of these edits have been reverted by different editors for being inappropriate, unexplained and/or incorrect.

{{IPuser|2A00:23CC:E806:E01:16C9:2A23:C1D5:F099}}, {{IPuser|2A00:23CC:E806:E01:11B2:69D0:E4EF:729A}}, {{IPuser|2A00:23CC:E806:E01:BDB8:1F56:A315:1D4A}} and {{IPuser|2A00:23CC:E806:E01:5B45:DD73:3AA8:F02B}} have all received warnings for this. The last two IPs received level four final warnings.

Today, these edits are continuing under {{IPuser|2A00:23CC:E806:E01:85B0:3DA7:98A6:377F}}.

This person may be deliberately ignoring talk page messages and hopping to different IPs by choice, or they may be oblivious to talk pages with their IP simply being changed automatically every time they log in to their ISP. Either way it seems like a short block on the IP range would be appropriate to get their attention. Nobody else is recorded as ever having used the range. Belbury (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I believe this is the right place for this - but I have a cross-wiki troll who is venting their frustration with my administrative actions on the English Wikibooks and English Wikiversity by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atcovi&action=history leaving "retired" and "deceased" templates on my talk page here]. Please impose a protection on my talk page, thanks. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:RPP is the correct place, but no problem: I’ve semi-protected for one week. Go to WP:RPP to request again if vandals come back after protection ends. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just noting, Atcovi, that your [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Atcovi WikiMedia User page] states that you are Retired. When you don't have a User page on a project, this is the page that appears. So you might want to edit this page since it's your default User page, it's the user page that appears on this English Wikipedia project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Fiction Fanatic III}}

Regularly uses misleading edit summaries (such as "Grammar", when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zelda_Williams&diff=prev&oldid=1292352169 the edits are anything but]). Has received several warnings on their talk page, which they have seemingly ignored. Seasider53 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Other than the incorrect edit summary, I don't see any actual issues with this edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Everything about that edit reads as proper editing, including cleaning up the source. And the lack of clear diffs here (I tried to trace your 'final warning' to them from the 20th but didn't see where it was cross-examining between each of your contribs) definitely does not help at all. Meanwhile this first warning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirk_Thornton&diff=prev&oldid=1290409336 diff from the 14th] definitely didn't deserve a warning (adding links, merging a duplicate source, and removing abbreviations) and they were doing proper cleanup. Nathannah • 📮 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Seasider53}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fiction_Fanatic_III&oldid=1292399855 This silent final warning removal/summary snark] is not appreciated; FFIII should expand their summaries for sure, but what I said above is not cause to just dismiss ANI comments entirely and try to disappear the issue. Please provide the other diff. Nathannah • 📮 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=User is now aware and has promised to do better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I first thought this was a newbie with some WP:CIR issues (see older reverted edits or User talk:MyEnchantedLeader, but after seeing how they created :File:Andile_Lungisa.jpg and added it to an article here, I think it is just plain vandalism we can do without. Note the original image [https://mg.co.za/politics/2023-09-26-andile-lungisa-to-testify-for-state-in-graft-case/ here], which they just photoshopped or AI altered, creating a copyvio plus a BLP violation. They did the exact same thing, though more subtly, with :File:Julius Malema 2025.jpg (also added to article) taken and altered from [https://static.pa.org.za/cache/3e/83/3e83386f7a894c372ab93209105a402a.png this]. Fram (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I honestly didn't know that AI images are not allowed on Wikipedia, please help me instead of punishing me. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::MyEnchantedLeader, well, now that you know, you can always tag pages that you created and were the sole contributor for speedy deletion, either CSD U1 for pages in User space or CSD G7 for pages in other namespaces. If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its policies, just bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Noted, I will do that going forward. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Surprise, surprise. A new account, "SouthAfricanPhotographer", then uploaded new images of South Africans to Commons as "own work" (sounds familiar), which MyEnchantedLeader then immediately added to the articles (e.g. :File:Thabo Mbeki latest.jpg, uploaded 02.27, added to article 02.35[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thabo_Mbeki&oldid=1292463212], but also another). The socking is Commons' problem, the continued insertion of copyrighted works into our articles only hours after this ANI was started and closed is ours. Do with it what you want... Fram (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|{{nac}} Now blocked for 31 hours by User:Rsjaffe. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{IP user|142.126.191.195}} has persistently posted personal attacks and incivilities past a fourth warning. {{Diff2|1291374667|First offense}} on Talk:Amo (Bring Me the Horizon album). Further offenses: {{diff2|1291391522}} {{diff2|1291393454}} {{diff2|1291394535}} {{diff2|1291401023}} {{diff2|1292098891}} {{diff2|1292210905}} {{diff2|1292212540}} {{diff2|1292235131}}. Anerdw (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

There appears to be what started as a content dispute at Talk:Ó Comáin, but has collapsed into two editors accusing each other of violating Assume Good Faith, which often means that the accusers are themselves not assuming good faith. One editor is taunting the other to go ahead and file at WP:ANI and wait for the boomerang. The two main editors involved are:

• {{userlinks|Kellycrak88}}
• {{userlinks|Bastun}}

I had no involvement with this dispute until I read a nomination at MFD of Draft:OComainDraft, which is an effort by Kellycrak88 to rework Ó Comáin. Bastun has nominated it for deletion as a content fork of the original article. At best, this has aspects of forum shopping. At worst, it looks like an attempt to "win" a content dispute by asking the regular editors at MFD to delete work in progress. I think that some of the regular editors at MFD have no knowledge of the details of this dispute and do not want to be have knowledge of the details of the dispute. A voice of reason in the MFD dispute is that of User:asilvering, who writes: {{tq| This is the latest salvo in a content dispute where both sides have, for a long time now, continuously assumed the worst of each other, making it completely impossible to reach any sort of consensus.}}

Based on that comment by asilvering (and what little research I have done confirms it), this may be a chronic, intractable conduct dispute. I don't know what the community should do, but I don't like being asked, as a regular editor at MFD, to settle a content dispute arbitrarily by throwing away intermediate work.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some background can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#User%3AKellycrak88. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Further background can be found at Talk:Killone Abbey, where this all began in April 2024. 2024 is not a typo. -- asilvering (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yikes, looks like all three of these discussions referenced are dumpster fires. Not sure what the solution is, but it seems to me it is clearly disruptive to let this go on and on. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The Killone Abbey content dispute was resolved by May 2024, so not sure what the relevance is? Apart, possibly, from illustrating problems with reliable sourcing? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::It appears to me that Kellycrak88 is suffering the same IDHT issues that they did in that previous ANI. Right at the start of that thread Bastun lists the issues that their edits are causing and instead of engaging, KC88 simply lists an alphabet soup of the policies they believe Bastun is violating, without much or indeed any evidence to show that. It doesn't get better from there. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|"One editor is taunting the other to go ahead and file at WP:ANI and wait for the boomerang"}}

:KC threatened {{tq|I do hope I don't have to refer this matter to administrators board but I will await your final response before doing so}} (in the same reply as a baseless personal attack {{tq|Your reply clearly reflects a negative bias towards Gaelic cultural organisations}}) Bastun warns of a boomerang and asks that they instead use the talk page and get advice from their mentor. How is that taunting? Where in that exchange did Bastun {{tq|[assume] the worst of}} Kellycrak? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's time to block Kellycrak88, there is no improvement since the previous ANI discussion, they are still adding copyright violations (text and images), POV text, misrepresentations of sources, and so on. User:Guliolopez may have some useful input here as well. Fram (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Talk:Clans of Ireland#Lead claims / Failed verification / SYNTH is the discussion with Guliolopez and Seor from this month. It ended okay, but reading it shows how difficult it is to get even the most basic things accepted by Kellycrak. Fram (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have told Kellycrak88, who is now personally attacking Fram at asilvering's talk page, to stop it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I edit conflicted, my post was this: WP:CIR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAsilvering&diff=1292512233&oldid=1292510434]. How they succeeded in reading my post and getting the exact opposite meaning from it is not really clear... Fram (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Response by Bastun. I confess to becoming frustrated with Kellycrak88's editing and what I regard as WP:IDHT behaviour. Given the other talk pages referenced, I am clearly not alone in this. Issues that are pointed out to them have been ignored; or, they are possibly acknowledged, but then get repeated anyway. That's illustrated by the various talk pages linked above, so I'm not going to repeat them again unless somebody wants diffs, but they include things like copyright violations, poor sourcing, including references that fail verification, and so on. As to the issue that prompted this report by Robert McClenon, the MfD: the draft article is a content fork. I know of nowhere else on Wikipedia (and I'm here a while) where it's acceptable that editors are expected to find, via a live article's talk page section, that there's also a draft article, and that they're supposed to work on the draft, too, as well as on the live article. I did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A%C3%93_Com%C3%A1in&diff=1292177986&oldid=1291889965 advise them] that this isn't how Wikipedia works and that POVFORKs were against policy. It was only after nominating the draft for deletion that I noticed the instruction on MfD {{tpq|Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article}}, but just redirecting would likely have been seen as more provocative. In any case, I absolutely have no objection to the inclusion of reliably sourced information on Irish surnames, families, and clans. Where there is poor sourcing, speculation, and/or WP:OR, then it would be best hosted elsewhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Input from Guliolopez. I'm only contributing to this ANI because of the prompt (here) from {{u|Fram}} and elsewhere (at Talk:Ó Comáin) from {{u|Bastun}}. I have no particular interest in the issue ostensibly covered by this ANI thread (the "Dumpster Fire at Talk:Ó Comáin"). And [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Guliolopez&page=Talk%3A%C3%93+Com%C3%A1in&server=enwiki&max= have not contributed to that discussion]. And made just a [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Guliolopez&page=%C3%93+Com%C3%A1in&max=500&server=enwiki small number] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1268029106 syntax], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1267969547 fixes], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1267975599 tagging], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1268027777 MOS] copyedits to the related article almost 6 months ago. However, as with Bastun, I share a frustration with {{u|Kellycrak88}}'s approach to editing and discussion. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kellycrak88&diff=prev&oldid=1291536204 recently threw my hat at] a pointlessly repeated assertion (on an issue that was already closed about photos being used to make interpreted/editorial claims about government endorsement of the activities of private org). Of the exact type noted by Bastun above ("{{tq|Issues that are pointed out [..are ignored or acknowledged..] but then get repeated anyway}}"). While I'm unsure as to whether some form of sanction is necessary, it is clear (from reading this ANI thread and the article Talk page thread in which I was pinged) that the community has perhaps reached the point where more time is being spent trying to educate the editor and "manage" the editor's contributions than is typically reasonable... Guliolopez (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 was temporarily banned for disrupting the Marty Supreme page after a general consensus was reached. A previous dispute resolution came to this decision not even a week ago. And yet as soon as the temporary ban was lifted, User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 is once again back to disrupting the page. Please do something about this user. It is not right to have editors like this ruining everyone’s peace and constantly harassing pages/editors. They’ve been warned for disruptive editing on numerous occasions but it is always the same thing with no permanent solution. It’s been weeks now of this chaos and I’m truthfully drained mentally. We reached a consensus on the talk page but they have vehemently refused to accept this consensus and instead keep throwing around baseless accusations of biased personal relations with other editors as well as nonstop harassment.

2 editors agreed to have this information removed, 1 editor was neutral and yet agreed to have it removed if we saw fit. Leaving the majority agreed on removing this information. I truly cannot comprehend why this back & forth is still ongoing. Please help. Soe743edits (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• It appears this is already ZanderAlbatraz1145's fifth trip to ANI in the past 6 months (1, 2, 3, and 4) and sixth overall. Seems to be a pattern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Looks like @ZanderAlbatraz1145 needs to read WP:CONSENSUS and probably WP:EW or WP:DE. If anything else, it looks like this is at the very least a WP:CIVILITY issue. If Zander has been warned about this several times in the past and has not learned their lesson, my guess is that they're incompetent.
• :@ZanderAlbatraz1145, can you please explain your POV on this? »Gommeh 14:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It should be known that I only added content, not reverted back to my old information. I adjusted it. There was no true consensus either from unbiased editors. Only consensus from those which [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doniago#Request_for_dispute_resolution Soe743edits canvassed for]. Even then, one user opted for a page compromise, for some of the information to be included. Even that wasn't good enough for Soe743edits. See entire Marty Supreme page history to see what I am talking about. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Soe743edits, you should have posted a User talk page notification about this discussion on ANI when you started it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Agreed. I should have, also, but I did not foresee investing this much time into this issue. I judged incorrectly. They did not post on ANI likely because they did not want unbiased agreeance with my stance for the page. To be clear, the information I added isn't "disrupting" anything. Not one editor seems to feel that way besides Soe743edits, not even those who have tried to resolve the issue. I was satisfied with a previous resolution/compromise for the page that was done by one editor (again, see page history), and would have left the page alone as is. However, Soe743edits meddled yet again, and tailored the page to their liking. They also have a history of only editing Timothée Chalamet pages, removing information, and I'm afraid Marty Supreme also falls under that category. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::As previously mentioned, I have no intention to keep going back and forth with this editor. One read through on the Marty Supreme talk page confirming consensus, should clarify this discourse. If one editor having over 5 cases of disruptive editing and harassments in the last 6 months is not enough grounds for a permanent ban then wikipedia may indeed need to review their guidelines and rules. Every reply of theirs in these unending dispute resolutions is always an excuse to justify their own “POV” or further harassment filled with lies and false allegations. It’s extremely draining to say the least. I really hope something can be done about all this soon. It’s becoming too repetitive Soe743edits (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Concensus from canvassed votes should and does not count. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It has not been that many counts; not in that timespan. Also those were over having to deal with other difficult editors such as yourself. I'm actually fairly agreeable; just as I was when one of the users reached a compromise for some of the information to be included. I was actually fine with that. But you had to drag it out ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'm also not sure why you're talking with such authority. You're a new user. You even admitted it yourself. Act like it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::@ZanderAlbatraz1145, I really recommend you read WP:CIVILITY. It's an essay on how to behave towards other editors. Some of the things you've said, in particular your choice of wording, can be taken as acting uncivil toward other editors, even if you didn't mean it. Please make sure you read and understand Wikipedia's policy on establishing consensus as well. In short please be more careful, even if you have an issue with an editor's behavior. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 20:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I just don't like being accused of things that are untrue. To me, that is uncivil, and it is difficult to be civil in return. That said, I have taken what you have said into account going forward with this issue. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::By the way, there is still edit warring going on with the page. Soe743edits can't seem to take a hint, nor do they seem able to wait until the issue has been resolved here or elsewhere. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I appreciate what you said, and in situations like that it's generally best to take a breather and get off of Wikipedia so you can calm yourself down. Take a walk or something. That way when you come back to editing your mind is clearer and not bogged down by anger.
• :::::::::In regard to your second comment, I've gone ahead and requested page protection on Marty Supreme so that @Soe743edits and any other editors can discuss the issue here or on the article's talk page. » Gommeh (he/him) 20:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Thank you. I appreciate your involvement. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::This is my last direct reply to this editor. I refuse to keep indulging their accusations and harrassments.
• :::::::As I just stated in the edit summary box, “Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way” As evident on the talk page, I have done no such thing. Both these editors came to the page after being informed on their talk pages of the situation, and very clearly stated their stands. if anyone should be accused of canvassing here, that would be you, considering you very clearly tried to influence formed decisions.
• :::::::Furthermore, 5 cases of disruptive editing in a short period of time are definitely a lot and speak more to your behavioural tendencies. Hopefully this is resolved soon so no other editors have to put up with whatever issues you have going on. Soe743edits (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::You canvassed by notifying those users on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doniago#Request_for_dispute_resolution as concluded by the user Doniago]. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Excuse me, but that's very much not what I concluded, though I did express concern that Soe's approach might present the appearance of canvassing. Given that they're a relatively new editor and, as far as I know, they've not done that again, I think we can give them a little leeway.
• :::::::::Since you've brought me into this, though, I'll note that you left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doniago&diff=prev&oldid=1292478085 this unhelpful comment] in response to a thread that had ended over a week earlier and which I felt had been resolved. Why you felt there was any need to interpose yourself into the discussion in this particular manner is a mystery to me; I wish, if you had to say something, that you could have said something with less WP:BITE to it. DonIago (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::It's hard for me to believe that I need to explain this, but even if there was canvassing at the Talk page...and I'm unconvinced that any intentional canvassing occurred...that wouldn't magically invalidate the Talk page discussion and give you carte blanche to reinsert your edits as you've now done three times since you came back from a block for edit-warring'. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marty_Supreme&diff=prev&oldid=1292478769],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marty_Supreme&diff=prev&oldid=1292575437],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marty_Supreme&diff=prev&oldid=1292595591]). I don't know how you can feel this conduct is appropriate after such a recent block for exactly this kind of behavior. DonIago (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Why not? The same thing has certainly happened to me in the past. Why does that not fly here? Certainly seemed like common practice in other cases from confirmed users. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::And I also ask you, currently, what reason is there that the information should NOT be on the Marty Supreme page? There certainly hasn't been proper concensus. In fact, let's even say those users were not canvassed, and truly were unbiased; one of the users reached a compromise/agreement for part of the information to be included. I was entirely fine with that. Soe743edits changed it again, and removed information again to their liking. And I'm the one who's being accused and being threatened for banning? I don't understand. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::I have had past history of dealing with difficult editors in the past, and not dealing with it/reacting well. That is not the case here. I'm trying to be as civil as possible. It is also not that many in the last six months. Two of those cases have been disregarded by users. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tagging the admin who previously blocked Zander, @QEDK. » Gommeh (he/him) 21:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Zander has now violated WP:3RR and stated in an edit summary that he feels like he's said everything that could be said on the Talk page.

::He might need another break from editing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is not true, and I have added more comments on the talk page as of right now. I'm willing to discuss it currently. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, but that's another untrue statement, people can see the edit summaries you post. Please be more careful about how you describe things that people can see for themselves in page histories, you seem to have made a number of statements that are directly contradicted by the history. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To clarify: I said that in an edit summary BEFORE you added a new section on the Marty Supreme talk page. Please see my most recent comments on the talk page. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You still roared past 3RR, and this was after you just came off a 72-hour block for edit-warring elsewhere. Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|AlfieRosa}}

This user is repeatedly making edits to recently deceased individuals adding a line to state the age at time of death then sourcing it to random and unrelated sources, most recent examples ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doug_Hinds_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=1292094895 a]), ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=1292092478 b]), ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_Harrison_(swimmer)&diff=prev&oldid=1292090223 c]). As recently deceased individuals they still fall under the bounds of WP:BLP so I have been reverting/removing their edits as they are effectively unsourced. I have provided warnings about this editing but they have continued. I have not taken this to WP:AIV as it is not obvious vandalism but it is disruptive editing. Their user talk page suggests this account may have been set-up to avoid a block to a different account. Please can an admin check this user's edits and advise on what action should be taken next. JP (Talk) 09:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm surprised that exchange of "I've been blocked / No I can't remember anything about it / Please ignore the comment about having another account, I wasn't thinking straight" was let drop. Seems damn convenient to me. Ravenswing 10:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::In particular, "the reason I was blocked on Wikipedia was because of distractive writing. Please ignore the comment about having another account", when the AlfieRosa account doesn't seem to have actually been blocked. Brunton (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I haven't checked to see if this has already happened, but this seems like it may be worth discussing at WP:SPI. Especially given the comments they made. »Gommeh 13:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until we get a decent explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|SarekOfVulcan}} If your only reason for blocking Alfie is because of possible socking, the matter was addressed at {{U|Ponyo}}'s Talk page here, and I don't think the block is fair. OTOH, if your block is at least partly based on the user's edits highlighted above, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I should have looked at your block notice on Alfie's Talk page. I just did, and it's clear you blocked them for the disruption to articles of "recently deceased" subjects. Sorry about that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, sorry for not being clear here. (If it had been a sock block, I would have blocked outright, not partial.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = Warned

| result = for incivility. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

A user recently re-added some content on the Zamindars of Bihar article that I previously deleted but I am slightly concerned by the threatening tone of their edit summary which reads “dont even dare to vandalise again” (diff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1292508641])

I have not interacted with this user before and it seems they’ve taken exception to some of my edits without discussing them on the talk page first. Unfortunately I’m getting the impression that they no longer want me to edit that article and are threatening me to do so.Ixudi (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:It seems to me upon first glance that the editor either doesn't understand the vandalism policy, or that they aren't assuming good faith. I agree that they should have discussed the issue with you on the talk page. However, I also think there was a valid reason why they made the deletions, as you could say they weren't notable enough to be included in the list. Still, they should have discussed the issue with you. »Gommeh 13:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Gommeh,

::It was actually me that made the deletion and the user in question is the one who is reinstating the content. I was following the reliable source and only including ones from the list in the notable section. Ixudi (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Gotcha, I must have misread it then. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm disregarding the content dispute, as we must here. No, it absolutely isn't acceptable language. If it is part of a pattern of behaviour, discussion here might be warranted, if not, not so much.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with {{u|Boynamedsue}}. I have dropped the editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Localproblem7110&diff=prev&oldid=1292544006 some notifications and a note]. Can consider the matter closed unless more issues come up. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 27 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)

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 TruthUser: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)

:::::{{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)

• 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)

{{archive top|{{nac}} Edits have been reverted, indefinitely blocked by Rsjaffe. GoldRomean (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|TinkerTown73}} All of this user's edits should be reverted, also time for a permanent holiday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

{{atop|{{resolved|Blocked 48 hours – Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}}}

• {{Userlinks|Grownarwahl}}
• {{Pagelinks|Pig Goat Banana Cricket}}

There has been some Slow-motion/quiet edit warring going on at the article Pig Goat Banana Cricket for the past month or so. Grownarwahl continues adding the same unsourced information into the article, despite being warned several times, reverted several times (including by editors other than myself), and even after being blocked for 24 hours as a results of edit warring (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive495#User:Grownarwahl reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: Blocked 24h)). The user has also recently blanked their talk page of messages/warnings, but seemingly none of the warnings or even the block has done a thing, as they are still continuing to edit war with the same unsourced information.

This user also does not appear to be communicating whatsoever, only three or so edit summaries used at the start of said edit-warring on the Pig Goat Banana Cricket article, and apart from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grownarwahl&diff=prev&oldid=1284337121 this one response], the only edits they've done on any talk page is removing old warnings from their own talk page, which clearly don't seem to have done a single thing in the first-place, as the user is just continuing on with the same behavior as before.

I'm not quite sure what more can be done here apart from a longer block/trying to actually get them to communicate, but any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The fact that they removed the warnings from their talk page signifies that they read them and disregarded them. I'd support a longer block for disruptive editing/edit warring. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have blocked them for 48 hours this time. We'll see if that gets the message through. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Cartered away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter
• {{rangevandal|2A00:23C5:C419:D301:0:0:0:0/64}}

I'm seeing a possible return of banned HarveyCarter who may be using the London IP range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:C419:D301:0:0:0:0/64. The topics of interest are the usual HarveyCarter fare including questions of Jewishness,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Lenin&diff=prev&oldid=1289566765][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cameron_Mitchell_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=1271100683] secret societies,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirk_Douglas&diff=prev&oldid=1291854992] various fascism[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eddie_Dempsey&diff=prev&oldid=1287054467] and WW2 topics,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=1291479216] film stars,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana_Dors&diff=prev&oldid=1291178283] cigarette smoking,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergei_Aleshkov&diff=prev&oldid=1286389371] cancer[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Price&diff=1269012418&oldid=1259216692] and pedophilia.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APeter_Tatchell&diff=1292160900&oldid=1285808427] Lots of talk page trolling.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Fry&diff=prev&oldid=1291592334][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Williams&diff=prev&oldid=1286516600]

The nearby range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:6380::/43 was blocked in 2017 and 2018.

Even if it's not him, we should block the range as unconstructive. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I looked at the edit history. It's consistent back to December 2024. Blocked 6 months for sockpuppetry. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|Rangeblocked again, for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I see {{IP|207.195.80.150}} using slurs against Pakistanis at {{Diff|oldid=1292585420}}, and also {{IP|207.195.80.152}} appearing to vandalize George W. Bush shoe-throwing incident at {{Diff|1292585636}}. Normally I'd just go to RPP, but given the fact that one of the IPs used a slur I felt the need to come here instead.

Edit: looks like /.150 is vandalizing pages now. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Tagging @GSK so they're aware. » Gommeh (he/him) 20:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:There appears to be this one as well, {{IP|207.195.80.140}} - TLJ7863 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=&target=207.195.80.0%2F24&offset=&limit=500 entire /24] is practically nothing but vandalism since its very first edit in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_habilis&diff=prev&oldid=526894849 2012]. No need to link individual diffs here, just take a brief look at the contribution history. Since the range is [https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=207.195.80.0/24 described as] "Government of Saskatchewan Communitynet", maybe this is a school or library? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

• {{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)

@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)