Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Betacommand's statement

{{userlinks|John Not Real Name}} seems to be edit warring in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1285598403&oldid=1284826263][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1285600532&oldid=1285600064] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1285603459&oldid=1285602656] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1289578432&oldid=1289112714].

The issue is discussed here: Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Recent_changes. I had already suggested WP:DR. I also tried to resolve some of the issues in user talk page: User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name#User_conduct_dispute

They are adding unsourced content and too many quotes.

There might be some potential WP:CIR issues:

• {{tq|Why not? I am a new editor and I have basically been bullied into accepting a change by another editor. All that needs to occur is two people backing a change and you will lose as a result as you cannot edit-war. It is a stupid system. Why should I change my view, what makes the other person's view correct? Why should it be prose instead of an accurate quotation?}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Not_Real_Name&diff=1276567727&oldid=1276392026]
• {{tq|Edit-wars are thrice not twice}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1285618291&oldid=1285612540]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1276931176#Is_there_a_rule_against_using_quotations? Wikipedia:Help desk topic]

Also some WP:Civil issues: {{tq|Some people on here are imbecilic but we are all equal after all}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name&diff=next&oldid=1276567727], {{tq|Can you not read?}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=prev&oldid=1289578011]

The editor had also added some random commentary within articles as hidden comments:

• {{tq|}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1249537441&oldid=1249528076]

• {{tq|}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1249537441&oldid=1249528076]

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spain_and_the_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1262582352]

The first one above is really problematic as it comes after mention of massacres against Muslims and Jews in article text. Bogazicili (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a reason why this seems to be ignored by administrators? Bogazicili (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've left a note on their talk page pointing out issues with their behavior as mentioned here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|The Bushranger}}, thanks, hopefully this will resolve the issue. Bogazicili (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, the WP:CIR issue.

:::I had suggested dispute resolution such as 3rd opinion or dispute resolution noticeboard, but {{u|John Not Real Name}} just pinged someone involved in the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&curid=42074004&diff=1290576823&oldid=1290574848]

:::Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction is also a contentious topic. John Not Real Name is aware of contentious topics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Not_Real_Name&diff=1262676263&oldid=1235280540] Bogazicili (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What the heck? I asked if @Demetrios1993 could take part because I knew he was involved in the article. I have no clue about his point of view. I already sent a Third Party thing separately. I asked you if we could have him take part. If you had written no then that would have been the end of it. As I wrote, I had by this point already sent the Third Party thing as you can see with this link: ( Active disagreements ). If you did not want him involved, this is non-binding anyway, you could have indicated and that would be the end of it. Would you just stop calling me incompetent every ten seconds? John Not Real Name (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@The Bushranger Please archive this if the matter has been dealt with. I am pursuing a WP:DR. I need this resolved. Thank You. John Not Real Name (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have already cut down the length of quotes I used and repeatedly stated that if you wished you can cut down the quotes as long as you keep the gist of the meaning.

:That was months ago and I have already been learned as you show with the next example. I meant the three revert rule. I used edit wars as a term incorrectly and you were the one to start the tiff.

:Yeah, I did that months back and I think you corrected me. Why are you bringing that back up? I have not repeated it. I would like to clarify the first comment, I was not implying it was okay to attack jews and muslims given that I was not writing about jews or muslims. I was writing about the response towards Greeks (If you see the text, I had included it after "In response,".) and shewed that Greeks were still resisting ottoman forces before the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) and that extract was specifically about "Dance of Zalongo" (1803). My point being that the implication the reprisals were in response to Greek actions against jews and muslims is "historically obtuse" since there was ongoing resistance against the ottomans to which this was typically the response by the ottomans: "In another part of Epirus, a group of no more than 200 Souliotes managed to defend themselves. After numerous battles, a few families managed to retreat to Parga. This “disgrace” could not be tolerated by Ali. He ordered his troops to kill every Souliote family that lived dispersed in his pashalik, and he sent the seventy Souliote families who had surrendered to him to inhabit the most desolate spots in his pashalik.

:The eviction and the catastrophe made Souliotes flee to Corfu. In 1820, they reached an agreement with Ali Pasha, and turned back to their homeland, fighting this time side by side with Ali against the Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, in no more than a year, Souliotes became part of the Greek War of Independence, thus leaving their land forever." from here: ( Zalongo incident ). Please retract that statement or at least write you misinterpreted what I wrote. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|The Bushranger}}, despite explaining WP:OR in user talk page in User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name#User_conduct_dispute and in User_talk:John_Not_Real_Name#ANI_notice, the editor insists in making WP:OR additions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290865758&oldid=1290864038][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=next&oldid=1290866046] Bogazicili (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC) {{small|see below Bogazicili (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:::@The Bushranger No, I have not. I am trying to find a compromise that does not assert anything whilst clarifying that the text does not mention anything specific regarding Christian persecution. I asked him to find where in the text he finds the assertion that Christians caused the population decline and he has not but ironically he performs original research by citing other sources and claiming that must be what the text means as can be seen here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290856354&oldid=1290851088 ), ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290860940&oldid=1290860793 ) and here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290869353&oldid=1290867630 ). He is trying to use these separate and different sources to claim something about Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's source. In fact he has repeatedly used this to claim it as evidence that it was Christian persecution alone which is WP:OR by his own standards. If you read the exchange I have done my best to mollify my own assertions as much as possible in the hopes of reaching a compromise. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Involved, as I responded to a WP:3O for this content dispute With no comment on the earlier section of the report, I think Bogazicili is overreaching. The content part of the dispute seems to being solved on the talk page, but both the links that Bogazicili provided are for talk page, not mainspace. WP:OR specifically states, {{tq|q=y|This policy does not apply to talk pages.}} As for OR in the article, I think the talk page is dealing with that issue, and no administrator intervention is needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank You. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see there was indeed a second source that John Not Real Name cited, sorry for the mistake!

:::::The article talk page got very confusing. Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No worries. Thank You for the retraction. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::We all make mistakes, especially for long and sensitive discussions. I appreciate you clarifying things for us! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Indef'd with TPA revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Shahmoien}}

Shahmioen looks to be an account with only purpose - to use Wikipedia to spread THE TRUTH about Ahmadiyya Islam.

They've made various attempts at article censorship.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad&diff=1289658744&oldid=128864173 Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad&diff=1289658744&oldid=1288641737]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmood_Mosque%2C_Haifa&diff=1289621473&oldid=1273771215 Mahmood_Mosque%2C_Haifa&diff=1289621473&oldid=1273771215]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmadiyya_in_Switzerland&diff=1289623030&oldid=1234431368 Ahmadiyya_in_Switzerland&diff=1289623030&oldid=1234431368]]

They've had repeated warnings, but ignored them. Honestly, this looks like someone who's just WP:NOTHERE PepperBeast (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:User is continuing to make the same edits, which seem to consist of using find and replace/find and remove of certain words. Also marking the edits as minor.

:* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmadiyya_in_Israel&diff=1290193573&oldid=1290167723

:Kaotac (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::User has made it clear on their talk page that they will continue to do this in spite of what is said by others or what evidence is given. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Judging by his talk page, he is quite displeased. Kaotac (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

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)

:* 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)
• NeutralWeak 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)

::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)

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)

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)

:::@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 n 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 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)

• {{userlinks|Moscow Connection}}

User:Moscow Connection has for a long while now engaged in tendentious editing, demonstrates a constant battleground mentality, and continuously posts personal attacks and insults. I will let MC's words speak for themselves. The relevant threads are listed in reverse chronological order, and I have quoted the most galling examples of MC's own words, although there are plenty more, and interested editors are invited to click on the links to examine each thread fully. At this point, I am requesting a topic ban from all matters related to figure skating, as MC has demonstrated that he is unable to edit constructively or civilly.

MC continues the same behavior from the most previous ANI thread, engages in battleground behavior, and fails to understand how WP:SIGCOV works. MC actually posted a letter to the editor of a local newspaper that simply acknowledged that the competition was taking place as evidence of "significant coverage".

Examples of MC's persecution complex and gaslighting:

• "It is simply not true that I insulted him for months as he says [22]. Please check the information Bgsu98 is telling you. Since January, I met him only at Lebedeva's AfD and now. And even at Lebedeva's AfD, I was afraid to post. Cause I'm (honestly!) afraid of him."
• "But that will mean that I won't be able to save any articles he nominates for deletion, won't it? And basically I won't be able to discuss anything figure-skating-related cause he is basically the only person active in that field currently."
• "Cause many people thought that Bgsu98 had all the right to PROD and AfD articles that don't demonstrate the subject's notability. But this time, these are major, very popular competitions, and it is simply unreasonable to think they are non-notable. Why not search for sources instead of mass-redirecting? Bgsu98 lives in the United States and he can just go to a library."

This complaint was closed by User:Liz with the following instructions: "I don't think you are getting the hint. Stop talking." Pinging User:Masem and User:The Bushranger who commented on this complaint.

MC: "But it looks like he doesn't know anything about figure skating. Cause saying "le Trophée de France is non-notable" is like saying "the Moon doesn't orbit the Earth". One has to literally "have no idea" to write that."

MC: "I was afraid to vote because of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE. Where the emphasis of the discussion I started was shifted to attacking me. Since then, I've been avoiding AfD and decided to come here only because I know Lebedeva was famous enough." Note: The bolding was mine.

MC: "I'm telling you, she is famous." This was honest to God MC's argument for keeping this article.

MC: "Like, really, if you don't know anything about Russia and figure skating, don't touch such articles. Write about something you know."

MC: "A note to the above voters. If you can't do a proper search, don't vote." Both User:Oaktree b and User:Ravenswing explained patiently why none of the "sources" MC provided met the standards of WP:SIGCOV. This AFD ended as a delete.

MC: "Why are you nominating/voting if you can't do a one-minute search?" followed by a torrent of unsuitable "sources". User:Ravenswing commented on MC's tendancy to WP:REFBOMB and advised him as to the importance of WP:SIGCOV ("Not a SINGLE ONE of your links is a third-party, independent reliable source, and I strongly recommend you review the requirements for the same"). This AFD ended also as a delete.

Examples of MC making personal attacks. Pinging User:HyperAccelerated, User:HandThatFeeds

• "Also, a note to admins: Can it be that Bgsu98 finds fun in annoying other editors? I can't really explain the content of his user page differently. Yes, surely, different people can have different motivation for editing Wikipedia, but I don't think it is a "normal situation" when you look at someone's user page and see how the person likes to be "evil"."
• "I have found lots and lots about her! I don't think you or Bgsu98 would be able to do that cause you don't read Russian and don't know how to search"
• "Cause I've seen him lately on some figure skater articles in my watchlist, and I don't see him adding any references ever. It looks like his edits are purely technical. (As well as his nominations.) He doesn't really add to the encyclopedic content, just updates scores and changes the table formatting. (And nominates for deletion.)"
• "His actions are bot-like, and his AfD nominations usually receive one or two bot-like "delete" votes. We may as well just delete all the articles that are now outside of WP:NSKATE. It will be more fair than imitating an AfD process."
• "That's just strange. You are not an admin. Do you have some anger issues? I think it is you and HyperAccelerated who need a ban from ANI and an IBAN from interacting with me because I have never seen you in my life and you are attacking me all of a sudden."

Examples of MC's persecution complex and gaslighting:

• "Okay, people will say I am the bad person here, but I have actually tried to save a couple of articles. I don't understand why people so eagerly want to delete articles than can actually be kept."
• "I am not an AfD regular, and what happens there scares me. When I commented, people just bombarded me with "This is not a third-party reliable source independent of the subject", and it didn't look to me like they even knew what "third-party" was."
• @Ravenswing, why are you trying to "repulse" my attemps to save a couple of articles at AfD? First, you came here to defend Bgsu98. And then, you came to the two nominations where I commented, only to wholesale dismiss all the sources I found. And when I found another source, you said that there were "3 sentences" while there were actually 7. I've looked at your contributions, you don't look like someone who can read Russian or has any interest in figure skating. So why are you doing this? (Okay, you can have the articles, you won.)
• "You really sound like you think I'm doing something awful in my attempt to rescue an article. Come on, she's not someone terrible who wants to promote herself on Wikipedia or something. She's just a fairly famous figure skater. You don't need to defend Wikipedia from her."
• "OMG, Bgsu98 nominated her sister for deletion, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-seong. He nominated her on January 1, and no one has commented since. (Okay, I'll vote now and save her.)"

MC: "But it is the same thing cause random people at AfD don't care about actually checking the notability and just vote "delete per nom"."

MC: "By the way, I don't understand your agenda here on AfD... Like, you nomitated Kamil Białas 2 (two) times with exactly the same rationale... Are you planning to nominate it 100 times?" Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

New York Times is not a local newspaper. Everything else is just a collection of random old topics. As for "battleground behavior", I don't know how this is "battleground". I'm actually polite. As for Bgsu98, he has told repeatedly to many users that their articles are "trash", "junk", etc. See User talk:Bgsu98#Trash, junk. He has also tried to ban several users who protested against his edits to Amazing Race and figure-skating articles. I think he exhibits behaviour associated with ownership (WP:OWN). And look at his user page as of February 28: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bgsu98&oldid=1278177370]. I think the page is shocking. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is possibly an honest error due to language proficiency, but the title of that section on Bgsu98's Talk was from a third party, who was quoting a... fourth party. It was not from Bgsu98. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|MilesVorkosigan}} As I understand, {{u|Drmies}} warns Bgsu98 that users can get banned for words like "trash" and "junk". I have personally seen Bgsu98 using the word "trash" a lot. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, again, Drmies was referring to something that an entirely different person said. You should strike out this claim.

:::If you've seen Bgsu98 using that word and want to include it, then you should find a diff that shows them, not take a third party's statement out of context. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, maybe I misunderstood. But Bgsu98 actually uses the word "trash" a lot. I can provide other examples. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And look at this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1287187083]. Quote: {{tq|{{u|Sportsfan 1234}} has been told *repeatedly* to not post on my talk page, yet continues to vomit up his worthless template warnings. How many times will this behavior be allowed to continue before action is taken as harrassment?}}. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgsu98&diff=prev&oldid=1279620912]. Quote: {{tq|None of that shit belongs in an encyclopedia.}} (That was said about a "Personal life" section that is absolutely common on Wikipedia.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Here's another example of him using the word "trash": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1286453457]. Quote: {{tq|... but if all he wants is to have the articles restored in their current trash condition}}.
That was said about me. That's why I thought that the message was a warning to him. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::User:Moscow Connection, you're clutching at straws here. These diffs are about content and when it comes to content, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Galay&diff=prev&oldid=1243883079 this example] {{U|Bgsu98}} was absolutely correct. If you think that that kind of content is OK here, I think we're in WP:CIR territory. Stop it. Try to take responsibility for your own actions. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Here's an example for your convenience: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1286456819 {{tq|You want that trash “restored quickly”? That’s embarrassing.}}]. He said that to me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Good lord, that's in response to another example of you making false accusations about Bgsu98 and is also clearly after you were asked to stop interacting with them.

:::I can only suggest that your best course forward is to stop harassing, stop tracking their talk and user page, stop repeatedly filing incident reports. Let other editors make the reports if they are required. In the meantime, there are options such as Wikipedia:Third opinion or [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment to help content disputes. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

And yet again, I am actually the only one who searches for sources and trying to prove notability. Lately, I have participated in only two discussions at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Lebedeva and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Skate America, and both times you can see me frantically searching for reliable sources. I'm googling like crazy. And look what Bgsu98 does there. Does he try to search for any reliable sources? No. It actually may look like that he instead tries to discourage any attempts to save those articles. I would actiually say that it is him who exhibits "battleground behavior". --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:"I'm actually polite." Right. The evidence listed above begs to differ. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit conflict}} I would also want to draw attention to this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#User:Stevencocoboy. Where Bgsu98 wants to ban an editor who interferes with him in figure-skating articles, he wants him to be banned because of a minor disagreement over some tables. Over something that is invisible to Wikipedia readers. While I behave responsibly and basically save that very productive Chinese user for Wikipedia. I don't think my behavior is "battleground". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Having seen that incident and the discussion around it, your description is not forthright and does not include any mention that you were given a repeat warning during it to stop interacting with Bgsu98.

:Please be aware that making accusations that are contradicted by the diffs your post risks WP:BOOMERANG MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Speaking from the outside, it does indeed look like MC has exhibited WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in these AfDs and ANI discussions (including this one) revolving around figure skating. A topic ban on the subject/AfD may be warranted. I would suggest MC does more content creation to fully comprehend WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• I find the mass deletion activities of the OP to be concerning. E.g. Skate America, which the Bgsu mass redirected and then AFDed, had extensive nation-wide coverage as demonstrated at the AFD (I believe JTtheOG presented numerous failures of BEFORE at a prior ANI case). MC's behavior isn't all that great either, but I don't think a topic ban is warranted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Skate America is unquestionably notable. Individual year-by-year Skate America events don't appear to rise to the level of individual notability outside of the group, receiving only routine coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Even with hundreds to thousands of articles on the subject from national media outlets? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• On Skate America. Are there {{tqq|hundreds to thousands of articles on the subject from national media outlets}} on each individual yearly event, that aren't each outlet printing a boilerplate press-release on the results? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I guess I don't see what purpose is served when we don't have a full listing of the competitors, what order they finished in, or anybody's scores in either the short program or the long program, much less their overall final score. The article in that condition is embarrassing and makes us like amateurs. I didn't delete the article; I redirected it to the parent article where the medalists, the event's location, and a link to a relevant source are all available. If, at some point in the future, all of that information can be found and the tables filled in fully, then the article can be reopened as a standalone article. I even put in the text of my AFD that I would recommend the article be redirected again. All that being said, User:Fyunck(click)'s suggestions about lumping all of the pre-Grand Prix installments into one article is a good one, and I would be willing to undertake its creation. I did a page one rewrite of Skate America, which involved combing through the back issues of Skating (magazine), so it would be an easy task for me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::There are plenty of older competitions in tennis that don't have the full results. That doesn't mean we don't show what we do have. ABC archives have many of the Skate America yearly shows to watch. They show most of the results (at least the top 6). That's pretty important. The info for these years it important to many readers and notable. Now whether they remain as individual articles or "perhaps" take ALL the info from each year and put it into one really long article that covers 1979-1994. That might get more readers to help find all the results. What is concerning though is that we have all this info for over a decade of use sitting at these yearly articles. Do you plop on a template that askes for sourcing help? No. You remove the info and put up a redirect on all of them. That borders on disruptive editing. I only found out about all these redirects today because of a not left at the Figure Skating WikiProject. That is unacceptable. Skate America was a huge event each and every year but of course it was before the internet existed so the sources are harder to find. But they were all televised multiple times on major networks. They were big deals. We have to be careful with the pre-mediafrenzy days. They did exist and they were extremely popular. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::While we do indeed have to be careful about WP:RECENTISM, the fact that {{tqq|we have all this info for over a decade of use sitting at these yearly articles}} isn't a reason to keep it around. If the individual yearly events can be verified to be notable, great, but suggesting they should be kept around just because they've been there a long time is not quite kosher. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::But that is a different conversation than what is going on with this AnI report, and I can't comment on each and every massive amount of stuff that editor Bgsu98 has brought forward here. I can comment on this item because what I see with his turning it all into redirects is something that could easily cause a boomerang. This seems to be an issue between these two editors in particular as opposed to a singular editor problem. I do think the yearly articles are perfectly alright but they do need sourcing to be sure. That was no reason to blanket erase 10 year old articles without tagging them for improvement. We can't allow that behavior either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Point of order - we absolutely can allow that behavior. The age of an article is irrelevant when it comes to this; WP:BOLD can be applied even if the article was 20 years old. Now, maybe it shouldn't have in this case - that's the debate here, basically - but suggesting we {{tqq|can't allow that behavior}} just because an article is 10 years old (or any age) is troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::We don't seem to be on the same page here as far as appropriate behavior and what I have been told so many times by other administrators during my wikipedia tenure, so I need to divest from this party. Cheers to all involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{tq|I would suggest MC does more content creation to fully comprehend WP:GNG}} doesn't seem like useful advice, considering that Moscow Connection has created [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Moscow%20Connection over 1000] articles. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :You're right. I'll strike that. Conyo14 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe I don't fully understand WP:GNG, but I am really confused as to what is happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 Skate America. What more is needed from me? Should I go and find more sources? I have found many sources that discuss the topic in detail. It is a sports event, there won't be any literary reviews or musical reviews from Robert Christgau. (I am mainly active in music-related topics. I understand them better.) The sources I have found are long enough and discuss what happened at that year's Skate America, what else is needed?
  For me, deleting "1993 Skate America" is like deleting "1993 US Open (tennis)". Hence the reaction. I'm very sorry if I'm overreacting. (By the way, there's only one reference in "1993 US Open (tennis)" and I don't think it proves the event's notability.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• That is just a bit of an overreaction. Also be careful that all those {{tqq|many sources that discuss the topic in detail}} aren't all simply reprinting/paraphrasing a press release on the results. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Is it me or is this just the same ongoing discussion, but now in a fourth place? We might want to ask @Moscow Connection to read the explanations given there, instead of repeating them all again?
• :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1993_Skate_America
• :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#User:Bgsu98_mass-redirecting_articles_about_major_figure_skating_competitions
• :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Bgsu98_mass-nominating_articles_for_deletion_and_violating_WP:BEFORE MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :So the first publication I was ever published in was Kung Fu Magazine. As you might imagine I was a subscriber and regularly read it cover to cover. It regularly published narrative journalism about martial arts events. Going back further Hunter S. Thompson got his start as a sports journalist and part of what made him stand out in political writing was bringing that sports narrative style to politics writing. It's a patently false assertion that standings alone are the best we can expect for sports events. I don't know enough about the rest of this to comment but what I will say is that, if standings are the best you have, you don't have significant coverage of that event. I would suggest maybe looking for contemporaneous magazines about skating to see if that coverage exists. Archive.org has a lot of old magazines. But deletions based on the absence of significant coverage seem appropriate even if standings exist. Simonm223 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Here's my advice to you, Moscow Connection: give up. Wikipedia is dominated by people who see it not as an encyclopedia, but as a hall of fame that needs to be kept exclusive. There's no longer a place for people who want to write about niche and underappreciated topics. Mlb96 (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Not true, and not helpful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yeah okay, I went a bit overboard on the cynicism there. Stricken. Mlb96 (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

MC has continued his gaslighting and misrepresentations on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep&diff=next&oldid=1290397893 yet another forum] Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry. I misinterpreted your words. (And I probably unconsciously prefer to believe that no one can possibly think that the 1993 Skate America was a non-notable event.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :And again with the personal attacks. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: {{tq|Sorry ... I probably unconsciously prefer to believe that no one can possibly think that the 1993 Skate America was a non-notable event.}} – I don't see how that's a personal attack. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::"I apologize, I thought no one would find this non-notable" That is definitely not a personal attack. If everything MC says is suddenly gonna become a PA to you, then I don't know what to say. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Self-withdrawn. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• At this point, the two of you are becoming a time sink for the community. I'm wondering if (a) a two-way iban should be imposed and (b) perhaps in addition both of you should be topic-banned from figure skating (if nothing else to avoid the issues of "one nominates figure stating articles at AfD and the other can't contest it because of the iban"). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Starting to lean towards this option too. Conyo14 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Actually, I was quiet as a mouse for the whole month and for 3 months before that. (And before that, you probably had never seen me.) If I do something wrong, just tell me to stop. You can actually just type "Stop" on my talk page and I will stop what I am doing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::And yet here the two of you are, again, with no resolution in sight to the conflict. An iban would resolve it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::@The Bushranger, I dropped the matter as soon as you dropped the hammer yesterday. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I am not sure there is a conflict. I am not the one who started this discussion. What could be deleted has been deleted and what could be redirected has been redirected.
  (I simply participated in one random AfD. And "here we go again", as you say. I didn't expect this to happen, I saw that AfD and decided to defend that one Skate America article. Successfully, I must say.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer two-way interaction ban between Bgsu98 and Moscow Connection. Not sure a tban is merited yet, so not officially proposing that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• No. I don't think topic banning two figure-skating editors from figure-skating is a good idea, and an Iban would be worse, letting each editor carve out parts of the figure-skating topic area as their own.

:At the last ANI, Bgsu demonstrated willingness to respond to feedback (in that case, by nominating fewer articles for deletion). If we propose specific improvements to their behavior, I suspect they would be receptive. For instance, I strongly recommend that they dial back on the sarcastic comments and be careful to avoid bludgeoning (I am not sure if they have crossed that line yet, but they certainly have come close).

:Moscow Connection often seems to misunderstand what notability means, esp. that notability is demonstrated using sources. However, my impression is that they generally make fewer fallacious arguments and now often cite sources at AfD, which is an improvement. If they only make guideline-based arguments and do not bludgeon discussions I think they can continue to participate at AfD.

:Moscow Connection has a disturbing propensity to misconstrue the comments of others and bludgeon discussions. This might be sanctionable. This should be looked at separately, and the solution to this is not an Iban or Tban. Toadspike [Talk] 20:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Hm, that's a good set of points. I'll withdraw this for now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Hipal}}
• {{articlelinks|Hasan Piker}}

@Hipal has repeatedly added numerous tags to the Hasan Piker article. As per these discussion 1 2 on the talk page, no editor has supported the notion that the article should have these tags, but at least seven editors (LittleJerry, Sam Walton, Bluethricecreamman, jonas, CeltBrowne, Alenoach, and myself) disagree that the tags are appropriate, and several of them have stated that Hipal has failed to adequately explain why the tags should be there.

Despite this pretty clear talk page consensus as well as warnings and constructive suggestions by other editors, Hipal has repeatedly re-added the tags. I appears to me that this requires admin intervention at this point. Cortador (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Or maybe just follow WP:TALK and work with others with the assumption of good faith. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Page fully protected for two days to stop the edit-warring and drive discussion on the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We've had the discussion on the talk page already, and a consensus emerged. That is the issue here Cortador (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So far, I haven't seen any sign that Hipal is willing to be more collaborative. At some point, Hipal should drop the stick and move on, or seek less combative ways of fixing what Hipal thinks is problematic. Alenoach (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I read the article TP discussion. It appears Hipal is practicing a form of sealioning to stonewall the discussion ("{{tq|Please address my previous comments, and follow WP:TALK}}") Sorry, @Hipal, there is no requirement to fully satisfy a single editor who is in the minority of the discussion. Regardless of whether your comments or concerns are addressed or not, you need to abide by the current consensus, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. WP:TALK does not have a proviso that you must be fully satisfied for things to move on. If you can't drop the stick, it's disruptive. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:SATISFACTION, for the record. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:For the record I have not shared an opinion on whether the tags are appropriate, only that continually reverting is less preferable to discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, Butlerblog and Samwalton9 for the helpful comments.

::We're here to improve this encyclopedia. The maintenance templates in dispute are used to indicate improvements are needed to the article. They should be treated as good faith additions to improve the article. If editors have some criteria that they can share on when they should be included they can do so.

::Removal of templates done without actually fixing the problems they indicate is disruptive. Editors who do not, cannot, or will not understand the problems indicated should leave them be. --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Hipal, as best as I can tell from the article talk page discussion, other editors are pleading for specifics on the problems that you see in the article, but I haven't seen you provide those. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHasan_Piker&diff=1279808771&oldid=1279766931] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHasan_Piker&diff=1287648234&oldid=1287549043 the discussion above is just one example of systemic problems with how this article is being written without regard to policies.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHasan_Piker&diff=1287701434&oldid=1287694672] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHasan_Piker&diff=1288594921&oldid=1287710212 Making sure all the references have full citation information would be a good first step. Checking all the references against WP:RSP and WP:RSN is another.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hasan_Piker&diff=next&oldid=1288594921 The redundancies in the "Awards and nominations" section should be removed.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHasan_Piker&diff=1288621070&oldid=1288620230 Everything cited only to a poor source needs removal or the sourcing needs to be improved.]. --Hipal (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just generally pointing at everything is the *opposite* of giving specifics. The first link just says 'most, if not all' of the article.

:::::I can't tell if there's a language barrier here, but you're going to need to figure out some way of expressing what you want changed, possibly by using the edit-requested template MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• This user is continuosly deleting relevant and cited information from the Fred Young (businessman) article after I have repeatedly as them to stop on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishedhistory (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::You are edit warring to restore personal information such as birth date, birth place, and full name to a biography article that is not supported by reliable sources. In addition, content of this nature added to the infobox must be supported by reliably sourced article content.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Protected the article for two days so discussion at the talk page can play out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tq|not supported by reliable sources}} Is it not? I see the addition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit§ion=81 three sources]. The latter directly verifies the text (it's actually copy/pasted -- probably needs to be reworded, even if it is just a basic list of facts). Who tracked down those citations without urls and confirmed they didn't verify the text? I see someone adding some pretty basic facts about a person, with citations (and a few issues that don't merit the following), and their very first interaction with another Wikipedian is Praxidicae reverting with edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Young_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=1289445273 A whole lotta nonsense]. No explanation, no talk page message, no user page message -- no help or guidance whatsoever. Just an insulting edit summary. The next revert: "Mostly unsourced cruft". I feel like if I was a new editor, tried to add a few citations, and got that reception I'd probably think the other person was being disruptive, too. Fishedhistory left a talk page message, got no response for a couple days, left another one, and at every step Prax was hostile and provided no help. Then the first interaction with a third party is to be scolded, as a newbie, for using the term "vandalism" incorrectly. Nothing that happened here is ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Original Poster forgot to notify User:Praxidicae on her user talk page. I have notified her. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Robert McClenon}} {{NAO}} False. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:It was unsourced and poorly sourced cruft, but feel free to come at me and tell me I should spend more time hand holding an editor who wants to create obviously promotional nonsense instead of doing their own work to read basic rules and policy instead of asking other editors to do it for them. This is why you guys lose editors like water through a sieve. Feel free to impose a block, ban, whatever. ♡ COOLIDICAE🕶 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::And it's obvious y'all care far more about optics than our actual dedicated, meaningful policies. COOLIDICAE🕶 22:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If you think a request to actually communicate with people, explaining why you're reverting, and giving new users anything to go on to figure out what they've done wrong instead of just dismissing edits as "nonsense" and "cruft" is "optics", that's not great. {{tq|instead of doing their own work}} - And how does a new user know what their "own work" is when it's just reverted as "nonsense", followed by two people saying their content with three citations is "unsourced". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Throwing your toys out of the pram doesn't help the issue. Take a deep breath, step back, and consider how you would have reacted, had you been in their shoes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Explain how the following sources Fishedhistory used don't meet Wikipedia policy:

:::*The Journal Times. 18 Feb 1968. p. 27

:::*Mattoon Journal Gazette. 4 September 1973. p. 8

:::*The Journal Times. 25 May 1983. pp. 17, C1

:::*https://library.si.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/connect-newsletter/connect-summer-2014.pdf

:::The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:After having removed copyvio from one of Fishedhistory's articles yesterday, I'm not impressed seeing a direct copy-paste portrayed as a good thing. It absolutely needs to be reworded, before it ever touches this site. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Nobody said that's a good thing. It was framed as "unsourced". Well, after a serious of purely dismissive/hostile edit summaries with no information whatsoever, it was declared unsourced, despite having three citations. Point is, if you're copy/pasting, that's bad, but it's bad for different reasons. To emphasize: I'm not saying Fishedhistory made a stellar contribution; it's just unfortunate that some people who enjoy patrolling new users' edits are prone to dismissiveness and sarcasm rather than erring on the side of communication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Rhododendrites is right on the money. We should be more mindful of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with @Iljhgtn and @Rhododendrites. If you look at the pattern of edit summaries, it's pretty clearly a case of telling other editors to RTFM while blatantly ignoring policies and guidelines such as WP:EPTALK. Adding an appropriate editing summary is not hand holding, it is a basic expectation of editing in Wikipedia's inherently collaborative process and a lengthy, demonstrated pattern of aversion to that policy is disruptive, regardless of whether the underlying edits are disruptive (some arguably are). Ihpkt (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::100%. It seems to go beyond rudeness in many instances and border on personal attacks or just caustic sarcasm. Not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I will also add, basic biographical information is not cruft (most things people call cruft are not cruft, but rather Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) and it is often difficult to source unless the subject is so notable as to have been the subject of a professional biography. For this reason, editors in BLP should REALLY take some time to review the actual policies on sources, as I see a lot of reversions such basic information for no reason.

::::::WP:SELFSOURCE

::::::Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#For claims about living people

::::::Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF

::::::Information that is not controversial (like a name, date and place of birth, educational and professional background) should be attributed to the highest quality source available, but in the absence of gold standard sources, a wide range of sources are acceptable for this category of information under WP policy, so editors using WP:RS as a blanket justification are simply mistaken here. They really need to address the individual sources provided and determine whether they actually meet WP editorial policy, not their own imaginings of that policy. (failure to engage with the specifics of policy is why a lack of edit summaries is so disruptive, revisions should almost always include a reference to a specific policy basis for removal)

::::::Also, calling basic biographical information "promotional" is difficult to interpret as anything other than dishonest pretext for tendentious editing. There is a difference between information that is positive and information that is written like an advertisement. For many subjects in BLP, their notability will be inherently attached to facts about them that readers and editors will view as positive, that is not the same thing as the text being promotional, and in cases where a stylistic change is merited, that is the prescribed action under WP policy, not reversion.

::::::Beyond that, I think there are some stylistic problems with @Fishedhistory's edits, but these just have to do mostly with conventions that would be opaque to a new editor, and could have been addressed with more productive discussion. Ihpkt (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{user|TheMaxChannel528-24}}

Another combative editor from our favorite pain point of kid's television network articles; over their one month here, they've moved multiple articles without discussion, and to titles that disambiguate networks that do not need it (such as Star Mundo to Star Mundo (Africa); there's only one Star Mundo). They've also uploaded multiple copyright-violating images and have been warned about it several times, and added galleries of network logos, an item we've heavily discouraged since the early 2010s as pointlessly decorative. Their only talk page communication has been the word [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheMaxChannel528-24&diff=prev&oldid=1287778999 'why'] in regards to templated warnings explaining why they were reverted (or this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheMaxChannel528-24&diff=prev&oldid=1287778974 nonsense where they invented a channel closing on the spot] to justify their edit), or revenge warning other users like myself on our talk pages for reverting or rollbacking their edits after warning them as to why. Their specialty however seems to be adding the new Nickelodeon logo to channels that have long closed down and never saw it adapted, and on Viva (Israeli TV channel), refusing to understand why Israel would use a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viva_(Israeli_TV_channel)&oldid=1290361220 logo in Hebrew rather than English].

I do have the feeling they've probably been here or SPI going by their username, and they're well beyond final warning, and the severe IDHT issues and coming cleanup to come from their messes suggest that they're otherwise a timesink to become a productive editor. Reporting here as it was suggested on AIV. Nathannah • 📮 02:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked from article space for a failure to communicate. They do know their talk page exists and have used it. Change the block as required. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've added a pblock of page moves and file uploads. The Article space pblock @CambridgeBayWeather applied may block article space page moves, but I explicitly added that to make sure. I will also note that the justifications @TheMaxChannel528-24 used for their page moves were not verified: e.g., claiming it was at user x's request or due to talk page consensus was incorrect. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Happy with this and hopeful this gets them to communicate and collaborate at the most minimum; thanks to you both. Nathannah • 📮 10:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Note @CambridgeBayWeather that they have just decided to create a sock at User:TheMaxChannel528-35 (now blocked) instead of addressing concerns. I'm getting shades of WP:CIR. 58.186.240.6 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just be aware that's there's been someone doing a lot of Joe jobbing recently, so this may be a fake sock. I'd like to see a checkuser analysis before blaming @TheMaxChannel528-24. In particular, the first thing @TheMaxChannel528-35 did was declare on @TheMaxChannel528-24's userpage that they were socking. That's very odd for a real sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: No, not really all that odd in my experience. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Ecrusized}}

2025 India–Pakistan conflict falls under WP:CT/IPA and has seen hundreds of editors, propaganda-bots and bad faith edit requests from all sides. The talk page is a mess, and a few editors have been trying to use talk page consensus to increase overall page stability.

User:Ecrusized has been consistently making unilateral changes without discussion.

• In this discussion they repeatedly added :Template:Fanpov without discussion to a topic of international law. After multiple back and forth reverts, they seemed to change the tag when challenged.
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ecrusized&oldid=1290407997#May_2025 This discussion on their user talk] was about WP:3RR violations when they edit-warred with User:Kautilya3 and User:Aviator Jr - See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=1290407248&oldid=1290407124]
• In this discussion, they forked off the article without discussion. And another editor complained about their biased removals (I could not verify the quality of the edits). I again reminded them about making major changes only after discussion.
• In this discussion, they later removed the "FANPOV" section altogether, without discussion.

The page as a whole has been in massive chaos enough that it's hard to keep up with edits and reverts and poor quality RS-es. I have not been able to go through Ecrusized's edits in enough depth to tell how biased they are, or how much they're improving the page. They do however keep making unilateral changes on a very high visibility page, and fail to discuss the edits, even when a Talk page section exists. Soni (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• It appears that Ecrusized is only one of many editors doing this on that page, some of whom are very experienced and should know better. I wonder if it is time to fully protect the article for a while so that editors are forced to gain consensus on the talk page? Or, given that this is a CTOP, we could try 1RR (although there also appears to be some tag-teaming so that might not be so useful). Black Kite (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think both of those options are workable. That said, the article has reached relative stability over the last few days, so at least there's a positive change over time.
• :We've gone from 100 open sections on the talk page to "only" 30 odd sections. And generally there is something vaguely resembling consensus based discussion on more topics than not. The reason I brought up Ecrusized was because they're the most visible such editor to me, and I'd previous discussed this with them, and warned them on this before. Soni (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :There are a lot of what I would call greenhorn editors in the topic area (which is India-Pakistan conflict in this case). Even if they appear "experienced" with reasonable edit counts etc., they are not well-versed with conflict topics or what is and isn't acceptable here. For example, there was a very long discussion on the talk page regarding ethnic branding of sources by the (real or imagined) identity of the authors. 1RR doesn't work in this situation because it ties the hands of the more experienced editors. I would recommend the enforced-BRD restriction that {{U|RegentsPark}} has designed for this topic area. It is currently imposed on 2025 Pahalgam attack and is working well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I like that restriction better. I was trying to enforce BRD on the page informally by interjecting in discussions, but didn't know that's an "official sanction" an article could be at.
• ::Generally I do think more admins keeping an eye out on the page would also help, there's only so much moderation regular editors can do (while also being WP:INVOLVED). Some of these editors are definitely in need of "final warnings", timeouts and outright partial/topic blocks. Most editors are learning to behave now, but there's a few that could use cooling down or worse. Soni (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It is not in the standard repertoire of page restrictions. But, under WP:CTOPS, admins can impose any restrictions they deem fit. And this one evolved through experience. Kashmir conflict was the first page it was implemented for. Somewhere in its talk page archives, it is also said that the same restriction applies to all Kashmir conflict-related pages, but explicit edit notices have not been installed on them. So it is difficult to tell editors about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Quoting this "have not been able to go through Ecrusized's edits in enough depth to tell how biased they are". I want to say that I absolutely do not care about either side in this conflict, and I am neither Indian nor have I never met with a Pakistani or an Indian in my life. All I've been trying to do is remove large chunks of content with WP:BRD because both side is adding non-stop POV material none of which pass WP:RS. This mostly seems to be Indian editors adding their own media which regularly creates hoaxes to push their governments agenda. Although there is also a number of Pakistani editors pushing their POV, on a smaller amount compared to Indian editors. Ecrusized (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Is the basis for removal WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I wasn't aware of that policy. But it certainly seems plausible to me that some of those edits maybe paid edits by the Indian government and or Indian news agencies. Ecrusized (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Actually I was checking because I don't think that policy would be particularly applicable here ans wanted to confirm that was not your rationale. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'll say the elephant in the room that nobody's saying -- WP:NEWSORGINDIA needs to be expanded to encompass *all* Indian media with regard to actions of the Indian government or military. It's not just paid editing -- these outlets are, as an entire monolithic entity, demonstrably incapable of reliably covering the actions of the Indian government with an appropriate amount of skepticism, which leads to nationalist editors pushing inappropriate content in articles citing these poor sources. The argument that "bias does necessarily correlate to unreliability" fails to hold up in this case for the entire categorical swath of Indian media outlets. For examples, I encourage anyone to take an analytical view of the most frequent areas of dispute on 2025 India-Pakistan conflict and it's pre-merge predecessor articles, as well as related articles for weapons systems in use during the conflict (notably Dassault Rafale, PL-15, Chengdu J-10 etc.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I’ve got to say that seeing one of these channels refer to airstrikes on “Terroristan” on live doesn’t inspire confidence on its reliability and editors using it. Borgenland (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I am afraid this is going off-topic and needs to be discussed at WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There is this conflict-inflicted journalism including patriotic claims on both sides. It has been discussed several times on the related talk page. The focus remained on Third party sources that one check for any mention questionable terms. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The idea of {{tq|WP:NEWSORGINDIA ... expand[ing] to encompass *all* Indian media ... as an entire monolithic entity}} is not evidence-based. Newspapers of record in India and Pakistan have similar flaws to newspapers of record in the US and UK like the New York Times and The Guardian, but we don't consider US or UK media as {{tq|an entire monolithic entity}}, since orientalism in the Edward Said sense is neither accurate nor ethically acceptable. Boud (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Boud, I don't know if that is a reply to mine per context. I understand what you quoted here but my reply is not claiming Indian side to be monolithic entity either.

:::::::::{{!xt|all* Indian media with regard to actions of the Indian government or military. It's not just paid editing -- these outlets are, as an entire monolithic entity, demonstrably incapable of reliably covering the actions of the Indian government with an appropriate amount of skepticism, which leads to nationalist editors pushing inappropriate content in articles citing these poor sources. The argument that "bias}} per SwatJester which was further enhanced by Borgenland and my reply was {{xt|There is this conflict-inflicted journalism including patriotic claims on both sides.}}

:::::::::I completely agree that these arguments are going towards subtle but direct bias towards one side. There are tens if not hundreds of such claims in the non-discussed side here. That's why focus on both sides when it is both and be neutral here. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I probably could have indented differently - sorry if I was unclear. My intention was that {{t|tq}} was for direct quoting - referring to the comment by {{u|Swatjester}}. I won't change the indenting now because then your puzzlement would then look odd. In any case, someone could open a discussion at WP:RS/N if they wish to discuss particular sources or to reject the newspaper of record POV on reliable sources. Boud (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yeah, I was just confused as there might have been a misunderstanding about my reply. It was understandable from your analysis that it was meant for the mentioned quote per context. Thank you for clarifying it further. Also, I {{Agree}} about that, discuss each source and on both sides when we are at it. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Repeated reverts constitute WP:WAR not WP:BRD 14.139.128.52 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah. One revert is BRD. Doing it again is WP:EW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Most of those edits are within minutes of each other. Since this article is updating constantly, its hard to spend a long time editing the page in one big edit without undoing others edits. Therefore I made the BRD edits section by section. The time between my reverts is usually ~15 minutes. Ecrusized (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There's a difference between edit conflicts and outright reverting others edits, which you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290404653 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290405445 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290405604 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290407248 and here] (note, that last was later self-reverted, but still part of the pattern). That was, in fact, edit-warring, and was absolutely not BRD. Given this - and your repeated insistence above that this was not edit-warring but WP:BRD - I've pblocked you from 2025 India–Pakistan conflict for 48 hours. You need to understand the difference between BRD and EW, (and that you can edit-war without breaching 3RR). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm concerned that Ecrusized seems to have gone back to the same behaviour within a few hours of their block expiring... After being reverted once for duplicate information [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290992122][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290992535], they re-added the material within minutes with an edit summary suggesting they had simply moved existing material within the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290994040]. They have also gone ahead and added contested material [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290989781] that was under discussion, while not participating in the discussion themself [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Disinformation_campaigns_Subsection]. I dont think the rather contentious WP:ARBIPA area is appropriate for this type of editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support ARBIPA tban as per the tendentious behaviour of this user. Not finding any reason to disbelieve that they're WP:NOTHERE. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• : I believe (but am not fully confident) that as an editor without WP:XC permission, you are not permitted to discuss this on ANI (as this is not an edit request on the talk page). I may be wrong though, so another editor please feel free to correct this. Soni (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Please ignore me, I seem to have confused WP:ECP and WP:ECR, alongside WP:CTOP. Soni (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There's also the fact that WP:ARBPIA (XC restricted) and WP:ARBIPA (not XC restricted) are so very similar-looking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I actually have been meaning to bring something adjacent up once I noticed. WP:CT/IPA and all the CTOP shortcuts are under WP:CT, but WP:CT itself is instead about citation templates. I think either CT needs to default to Contentious Topics, or all the IPA etc shortcuts need to start using CTOP instead. Not sure what the right forum is to bring that up. Soni (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|No action here -- this is a content dispute. Admins are watching pages relating to the conflict. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

@Ck17840 and @King Ayan Das have been committing disruptive edits on the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict page. When I inputted a source supporting that Indian damage on Pakistani targets were limited [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/14/world/asia/india-pakistan-attack-damage-satellite-images.html?register=email&auth=register-email (Source)]. They removed it and started falsely claiming that the New York Times was a less reliable and “detailed” source than the Washington Post [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290605066|(1)] (The New York Times are a reliable source which is agreed upon in Wikipedia:NYT). I tried to explain to them that the NYT is reliable and they had no right to say which source was more “reliable” or “detailed”, the two responded by accusing me of pushing my own POV, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290606135|(2)][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290607538|(3)] while simultaneously pushing their own POVS.

@Ck17840 was the one that tried to claim that the NYT was less “detailed” and therefore less reliable, but ironically used a source from PakObserver to prove his point, which is quite obviously a biased source[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290602769|(4)]. They then threatened to report me if I reverted the article to the one with the NYT source[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290607538|(5)]. I just simply want to create an edit with reference to a reliable source but I was instead dragged into an unproductive talk page discussion where I was accused of forwarding my “POV”. I urge the administrators to take action and to keep the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict POV-free.

Talk page location: This is where it all happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVagabond (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Having followed much of the discussion on that Talk page today, my impression is that while many of the arguments on display are weak, they're within editorial discretion and thus this is still just a content dispute. If anything, I think the main guideline violation on display, by all of the editors involved and several more also active on said page, is of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE--there has been no end of edit warring and complaining over the inclusion of myriad intricate details in the infobox, with editors generally acting like the infobox is some sort of scoresheet for the fighting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:This accusation is completely unfounded. The page in question is protected, so I am not even able to make any edits. How can I be accused of making disruptive edits or removing content when I don’t have editing access of this Page 2025 India–Pakistan conflict ?

:Furthermore, I never claimed that The New York Times is less reliable than The Washington Post. What I stated was that, in this particular case, from my perspective, The Washington Post article is more detailed than the NYT article on the same topic. I briefly and logically summarized what The Washington Post reported in their piece. Additionally, I cited a PakObserver article alongside The Washington Post.

:It’s important to note that The Washington Post is widely recognized as a reliable source, as acknowledged in Wikipedia’s guidelines: Wikipedia:WAPO.

:Articles in question:

:1. The Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/14/india-pakistan-strikes-conflict-damage/

:2. The New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/14/world/asia/india-pakistan-attack-damage-satellite-images.html Ck17840 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I never claimed the Washington Post was unreliable, plus, even though you couldn’t make any edits, you were threatening to report and sided with King Ayan Das, which resulted in the myriad of problems we have on that page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And again, you didn’t read my ANI report, because if you did, you’d know that your addition of the PakObserver post wasn’t reliable. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed with @Rosguill and after reading the talk page, it feels like they both not wrong.

::@King Ayan Das and @Ck17840 have mentioned this specifically that "damage" was there from the precision based strikes and it was "limited". The target seems to be precision based and that's why it was limited. Simple as that but the entire argument is based on other users pushing their pov by just relying on the word "limited" and ignoring the entire paragraphs. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Trouts for all involved. Resolve on talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Adam Bishop}}

Admin {{u|Adam Bishop}} started massively removing sourced content and references from Hugues de Payens, so I talked him at {{§l|Talk:Hugues de Payens|Sources}}, where he explicitly admitted his bias, defamed an author ({{tq|If he is not lying, he is an incompetent researcher. I'm not worried that I can't see the book. Based on what has been cited here, I don't think it is even worth reading.}}), randomly made false accusations against me ({{tq|I'm kind of wondering if you are Moiraghi...}}) and went on edit-warring in the meanwhile, so there's no more room for a civil confrontation on content. I'm wondering what's next, after defamation, groundless accusations, and edit-warring during an ongoing talk. — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:You were both edit-warring, and you both should know better. I agree that Adam's accusation about you was inappropriate. {{itrout|Trouts}} for both of you. If you want to resolve this, do a source analysis and reach consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Voorts}} Well, he doesn't even care to read the works whose authors he's boldly defaming, so I don't see how consensus could be reached with him, who just keeps removing tons of sourced content and references from the article. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, after all this time, I should know better than to start an edit war...the sources are completely unreliable but hopefully we can resolve this on the talk page. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1={{nac}} Mifflefunt indeffed by {{noping|Rsjaffe}}. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{Userlinks|Mifflefunt}}

This user has a signature containing links to porn sites. I left a warning about this on their talk page but their only response was to play dumb and claim they would "look into this." They also posted a transphobic rant on their user page (diff). Appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Day Creature (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Indeffed. The rant alone was enough. The hidden links alone are enough. I’ll revdel some of that stuff. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I just finished redacting that signature which Mifflefunt scattered all over the place. We should have some filter against off-wiki links in a signature. That was just awful. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There really should be a filter for that, because that sort of link was a trap waiting to catch any editor who clicked on their username or talk-page link. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Rsjaffe}} You should not be removing the whole signature. Remove the offensive parts, yes; but make sure that what remains complies with WP:SIGLINK, which requires {{tq|at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The important thing was to remove the junk quickly, thanks rsjaffe! That is an unbelievably bad bug. Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm with you, Johnuniq. No one needs to see that signature and they aren't coming back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I looked into some of their posts to other editor's User talk pages and the links were still there. It's after 1 am so I won't be following up on this until tomorrow. If someone in another time zone can check these, that would be great. They were on the "Talk" link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for fixing that. I intentionally violated the rule: I was about to hit the hay when I discovered those hidden links to a shock site, and did what I could with my handheld device. Even ignoring the rule, it took half an hour out of my sleep to delete those links. I find that using wiki markup and doing detailed edits on an iOS device is very slow and felt that it was better to fix the problem than to follow the rules.

::::The way the markup was used made it difficult to preserve any part of the signature during my edits: there was no valid signature contained within the markup, only fragments of it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Rsjaffe -- you missed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.48.167.38&diff=prev&oldid=1290153606 JayCubby 13:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks to Pppery for {{done|resolving}} the matter. JayCubby 15:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: This is probably WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Blocked|{{nac}} Sock tossed into the drawer. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 03:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC) }}

• {{ping|Rsjaffe}}, just said I'd ping to let you know the user is back under the username [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funckerflut Funckerflut] as can be seen by their sig on User talk:TNT Sports. Not sure if this is the right place or if I should file a new report, so feel free to move this down the page if you'd prefer. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :It's ok. {{noping|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} took care of the problem and removed most of the links. I used AWB and found one bad link that was still there. Fixed. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I didn't realise this was a return user, I reported them elsewhere for clean up. Knitsey (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::A couple of the edits that needed revision deletion hadn't been done yet, so I zapped them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Agh, thought I'd done a better job than that! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|Shrey Samrat pblocked for 1 month; Hardik004 indeffed; Rai achintya blocked and t-banned.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Shrey Samrat}}

Shrey Samrat is casting WP:ASPERSIONS by scolding editors they believe to be a "Pakistani"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290712383] even after the warning from Rosguill.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shrey_Samrat#c-Rosguill-20250514192700-Could_you_explain_the_reasoning_behind_these_comments?] This user is WP:NOTHERE. Orientls (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|The analysis subtopic is completely worthless; whoever is the editor seems to be blind.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1290712049]
They've been alerted about the contentious topics here. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I had been about to issue a block even before this was opened, having separately come to the same conclusion while reviewing Talk:2025 India-Pakistan conflict. I've opted for a p-block from the page in question due to their inexperience and the concentrated nature of the dispute, but a sitewide block and/or topic ban is the likely next step if personal attacks continue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Rai achintya is another editor who is using racist slur like Paki (slur),[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290704414] and attacking people by speculating their location,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290704584] that too after warning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rai_achintya#c-Slatersteven-20250516133700-NPA] Another case of WP:NOTHERE. Orientls (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Based on the timing of the warnings, I think that Rai achintya is on their last straw, and any further use of slurs or personal attacks will be immediate grounds for a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::This was the user I was going to report over the racist slur, but then decided they need a warning first (as it "this is a warning", I had already told them about NAP). Their reaction was not encouraging. A very wp:nothere vibe. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::He is again using the p slur ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290821678 diff]) JayFT047 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Used another [https://wikipedia.nucleos.com/viewer/wiktionary_en_all/A/Porki racial slur] there [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290827647 just now]. Orientls (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• topic ban of Rai achintya, the racism needs to be stopped, this is straight up trolling. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Hardik004 is another editor who is attacking editors by speculating their nationality[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290807548] and using racial slur even after the warning.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_India%E2%80%93Pakistan_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1290806347][https://wikipedia.nucleos.com/viewer/wiktionary_en_all/A/Porki][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hardik004&diff=prev&oldid=1290806379] Orientls (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:*User now indeffed by {{u|Materialscientist}}. Orientls (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Australian_expert here], I think it's a near certainty that we're going to have to remove Rai achintya from that talk page; no thoughts yet on a TBAN but for sure a p-block is on its way the next instance of incivility. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Swatjester}} But this user was already warned 2 days ago and is still using racial slurs even after the warning. Orientls (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::They've been blocked and topic-banned. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{user|Vergil69420}} has been making edits that add IPA transcriptions indiscriminately. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Savings_Bank&diff=prev&oldid=1289644785 The Savings Bank], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mississippi_River_Transmission&diff=prev&oldid=1289646211 Mississippi River Transmission], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Waters&diff=prev&oldid=1289718573 Sarah Waters], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_County_Airport_(Tennessee)&diff=prev&oldid=1289718809 Marion County Airport], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Hall_(mathematician)&diff=prev&oldid=1289719735 Marshall Hall], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logan_Shaw&diff=prev&oldid=1289789439 Logan Shaw], and more... I tried to speak with them on their talk page about how these kinds of edits are unnecessary and clutter the lede[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vergil69420&oldid=1289809341], but received [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vergil69420&diff=prev&oldid=1289876386 no reply].

Five days later another user warned them against the same thing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vergil69420&diff=prev&oldid=1290696298], which brought me back to their talk page, and to their edits which had continued unabated. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_LeBar&diff=prev&oldid=1290038650 Mark LeBar], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Dull&diff=prev&oldid=1290040681 Jack Dull], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Reese&diff=prev&oldid=1290042213 David Reese], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Foley_(artist)&diff=prev&oldid=1290372444 Josh Foley], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Rush_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=1290685726 William Rush], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Owen_(baseball)&diff=prev&oldid=1290687290 Frank Malcolm Owen], ...

They have made back-to-back edits adding IPA to separate subjects a minute apart, if you are familiar with working with the IPA then this is astoundingly fast, possibly indicating that the transcriptions are tool-generated.

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Garde_Township,_Mahnomen_County,_Minnesota&diff=prev&oldid=1290037971 12:09, 12 May] — [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Chavez&diff=prev&oldid=1290038112 12:10, 12 May]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suna_Y%C4%B1ld%C4%B1zo%C4%9Flu&diff=prev&oldid=1290210488 11:41, 13 May] — [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leopold_Heuvelmans&diff=prev&oldid=1290210671 11:42, 13 May]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Huxley&diff=prev&oldid=1290373240 12:14, 14 May] — [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riho_Terras_(mathematician)&diff=prev&oldid=1290373381 12:15, 14 May]

And many more which are two minutes apart: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irina_Kazakova&diff=prev&oldid=1289719157][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Della_M._King&diff=prev&oldid=1289719373], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amith_Eranda&diff=prev&oldid=1289720027][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Williams_(footballer,_born_1968)&diff=prev&oldid=1289720249], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1966_Korean_National_Semi-Professional_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=1289822529][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ak%C4%B1n,_Sand%C4%B1kl%C4%B1&diff=prev&oldid=1289822782], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Guy_(cricketer)&diff=prev&oldid=1289882049][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cabrera_(Salvadoran_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=1289882308], ...

While on the topic of possible tool use, in addition to this editors' comprehensive knowledge of the phonotactics and orthography for a wide array of languages, which is necessary to make transcriptions such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1966_Korean_National_Semi-Professional_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=1289822529][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bronis%C5%82aw_Pawlik&diff=prev&oldid=1289823037][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=O%C5%A1trice&diff=prev&oldid=1289881099][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89douard_Lef%C3%A8vre&diff=prev&oldid=1290041827][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suna_Y%C4%B1ld%C4%B1zo%C4%9Flu&diff=prev&oldid=1290210488][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%87ardak,_Ye%C5%9Filova&diff=prev&oldid=1290373685]. They also have a surprisingly functional lexical and grammatical knowledge as well of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Opinion_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1289787423 Scots Gaelic], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Bukayriyya&diff=prev&oldid=1289796873 Arabic][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canal_Hotel_bombing&diff=prev&oldid=1290207914][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dayr_Murran&diff=prev&oldid=1290371897](modern standard I presume), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chak_65_GB_Mukandpur&diff=prev&oldid=1289876963 Urdu], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirty_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=1289881461 Telugu], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Hasina_ministry&diff=prev&oldid=1289883629 Bengali][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gopalganj_Twin_Temple&diff=prev&oldid=1290534011], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piercefield_House&diff=prev&oldid=1290036224 Welsh], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kumbarees&diff=prev&oldid=1290037584 Malayalam][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._K._Ramachandra_Pulavar&diff=prev&oldid=1290370467], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncertain_(EP)&diff=prev&oldid=1290209255 Irish], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sohal_Jagir&diff=prev&oldid=1290368576 Punjabi], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caru_River&diff=prev&oldid=1290369927 Portuguese], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vasilios_Stavridis&diff=prev&oldid=1290371367 Greek], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_Kivij%C3%A4rvi_(South_Karelia)&diff=prev&oldid=1290373049 Finnish](Kivijärvi in Finnish is Kivijärvi, surprising.), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cakaudrove_East_(Fijian_Communal_Constituency,_Fiji)&diff=prev&oldid=1290531398 Fijian], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melakadambur&diff=prev&oldid=1290534695 Tamil][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permanent_Representative_of_Sri_Lanka_to_the_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=1290686598], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permanent_Representative_of_Sri_Lanka_to_the_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=1290686598 Sinhala] languages. Possibly these were sourced from elsewhere, but in the following instances I was unable to find the exact phrase in an online search: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permanent_Representative_of_Sri_Lanka_to_the_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=1290686598 Sinhala], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permanent_Representative_of_Sri_Lanka_to_the_United_Nations&diff=prev&oldid=1290686598 Tamil], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cakaudrove_East_(Fijian_Communal_Constituency,_Fiji)&diff=prev&oldid=1290531398 Fijian], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sohal_Jagir&diff=prev&oldid=1290368576 Punjabi]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Bengali is my native language. The diff you shared for Fourth Hasina ministry is problematic. In Bengali we don't write "চতুর্থ হাসিনা মন্ত্রিসভা" (4th Hasina cabinet). We write "শেখ হাসিনার চতুর্থ মন্ত্রিসভা" (4th cabinet of Sheikh Hasina). It is clear that they are using machine translation here. It is also possible that they are using online tools for IPA. But I don't know anything about IPA, so I can't say anything about that. Mehedi Abedin 16:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::And look at the edit they did for Gopalganj Twin Temple. It is not "গোপালগঞ্জ যমজ মন্দির". We call it "গোপালগঞ্জ যুগলমন্দির". Mehedi Abedin 16:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, Mehedi, for pointing that out — I really appreciate your input as a native Bengali speaker. You're absolutely right about the phrasing for "Fourth Hasina ministry" and "Gopalganj Twin Temple." I had relied on online tools for translations and phrasing, which clearly didn’t reflect proper native usage. I apologize for that and will be more careful moving forward. I’ll avoid translating into languages I don’t have native-level fluency in and stick to English IPA transcriptions where appropriate and accurate. If any of my past edits in Bengali or other languages need to be reverted or corrected, I fully support that. Thanks again for taking the time to help clarify things. -@Vergil69420 Vergil69420 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for bringing this up. But I'd like to clarify a few things. Vergil69420 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the detailed concerns. I want to emphasize that my intent was never to spam or clutter articles, but to contribute by improving accessibility for readers who may not be familiar with the pronunciation of certain names and terms. I understand now that adding IPA to extremely common names like “William” may not be necessary, and I’ll avoid doing that going forward. As for the speed of my edits — I sometimes prepare transcriptions in advance or use trusted references to help with efficiency. I am not using automated tools or bots to mass-edit pages. Regarding transcriptions in less widely-known languages — I use online phonology resources or reference pronunciation dictionaries. I now understand that without clearly cited sources, some of those additions might be seen as unreliable. I’ll be more cautious about that in future edits. I appreciate the feedback and will take it into account. I’m here to learn and contribute productively, and I’ll make an effort to align my edits with community standards. Vergil69420 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Please answer honestly, did you use any form of LLM or "chatbot" to generate, or assist with generating, this reply. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That entire comment is AI, according to several checkers I've just put it through. {{ping|Vergil69420}} Hi, now that you've warmed up, would you like to provide your own response, in your own words? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Of course, but I would have preferred to have heard their response, honest or evasive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Fine. I will explain in my own words. This is my true reply... I speak very formaly. So even if comes off as AI. It isn't. Vergil69420 (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I get where you're coming from, and I appreciate the feedback. Just to be clear — I wasn’t trying to spam or clutter anything. I thought I was helping by adding IPA for names or terms that some readers might not know how to pronounce (Remember, not everyone is from the USA, UK or Australia). Now... with that said. Adding IPA to common names like “William” probably isn’t necessary, so I won’t be doing that anymore. As for the speed of my edits — I sometimes prep them ahead of time or use reliable references to make the process quicker. I'm not using bots or automation... remember, I do 20 edits a day. For less common languages, I’ve been relying on online phonology resources and dictionaries (Unless it's Russian. Я говорю по Русскому уже) But I get that without solid citations, those edits can seem sketchy. I’ll try being more careful with that going forward. I’m just trying to contribute and learn as I go. I’ll stick closer to the guidelines from now on... now. Let's end this. Why fight over Sarah Waters? Don't we have other things to do? Let's just leave this conversation and be peaceful once again. Truce? Vergil69420 (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This is also created with the assistance of a LLM.

::::::::I would like to invite you to have a moment of introspection. What does it mean when others, like myself, can readily detect such outputs as being model-generated (even without the use of tools like gptzero), yet you seem to believe the same text is indistinguishable from human-created words and ideas? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Like I said, I already have spoken my point. It doesn't matter if it's AI or not. I have realized my mistakes, and I shall not do them again (try not too..) Now.. can we please just stop? Can we please just stop fighting like fools in a Wikipedia "Talk" section? I thought you were more experienced then me. The "wiser" one. Yet, you still fight me like a fool. If you truly are wiser. Sign the truce with me. The conflict in Ukraine already destroyed my life enough. I just want to contribute Wikipedia as a fellow Wikipedian. Now... truce? Vergil69420 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm sometimes amazed at how long people take to notice obvious trolling, especially by someone ending their name with "69420". WP:DNFTT 74.254.224.102 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Someone having an especially dank username is not an excuse to ignore WP:AGF, especially given that their edits could easily be construed as well-meaning, but disruptive, efforts to improve Wikipedia. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. Their name is only one indicator of their intent. Their edits are another. The joking using AI to deny using AI interspersed with obviously incorrectly spelled words in other posts is another sign that they are giggling about this. 74.254.224.102 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Dude, I am trying to do IPA. If I were truly joking, I'd be replacing all of the articles with Vergil status memes. And the "69420" part? My brother chose it for me, and thought it was funny (he is 12). Now, instead of bickering. Tell me how I can actually improve Wikipedia? Vergil69420 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm sorry, alright? I will not use AI like a dumbass and hope it gets me out of this. (It will not). Now, please, tell me the mistakes I made, or tell me how I can **actually** improve Wikipedia. Vergil69420 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I would suggest taking a step back from adding IPA to articles, and instead picking out something to do from WP:TASK. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I don't have any tasks right now. And I usually do them quickly. (I do 20 edits a day). I will stick to improving grammar, and improving the tones of articles. Do you think that's good? And also, can I add IPA to stuff like village, town, place names? Vergil69420 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::This may be improper, but given their insistence upon the use of LLM tools, and their blatant repeated dishonesty concerning their behavior, I have no confidence in their ability to contribute.

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::Dishonesty about their process:

::::::::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290722536 This statement] which tried to address my concerns about their speed, is largely a fabrication given that we now know their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290728467 actual process].

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::Dishonesty about their LLM use:

::::::::::::::::They posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290724388 this] claiming they would stop using a model, then immediately posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290725017 another generated response], and after I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290725777 pointed] it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290727569 out] they took steps to disguise the model's output with their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290728290 next message] in part by introducing less-than-believable spelling errors ("genuelly greatful" "knoe"). They are not even consistant with the errors they introduce, that message has both "know" and "knoe", they spell both [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290728290 cite] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290730065 site].

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::I also wonder how many Russian speakers[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290725017] impacted by the war[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290726560] prefer "Türkiye" over "Turkey"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mecidiye,_Lapseki&diff=prev&oldid=1290207111][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%87ardak,_Ye%C5%9Filova&diff=prev&oldid=1290373685]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I misspelt "knoe" as "know", and other words by accident. And for "genuelly" I actually thought it was spelt that way.. instead of "genuinely". And like I said.. I want to change. I will not use AI again, yet you don't believe me. Why? Vergil69420 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Your 12 year old brother chose a marijuana/sex themed name for you and you went with it. I'm not giving you any more of my time, but good job on convincing some of these editors to participate in the joke. 74.254.224.102 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::It was a good choice I stuck with it! Vergil69420 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Usually the use of an em-dash is a good sign you are using AI, btw. But, I'm confused on this reply, "I sometimes... use reliable references to make the process quicker" and "I get that without solid citations, those edits can seem sketchy" - as far as I've seen, from the examples provided above and the ones I've reverted, you aren't citing any of these changes you make. What "reliable references" are you referring to? Also, I'm still concerned with marking all of these edits as "minor" edits when they are not minor. Do you have a particular reason for doing that? On your comment about "Don't we have other things to do?" - other editors don't want to continue having to revert these edits, which is why we are having this discussion. These dialogues are an important part about being part of this encyclopedia's community. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|"Like I said, I already have spoken my point. It doesn't matter if it's AI or not."}} – It absolutely does given that you just made assurances you would not be using an LLM in your reply: {{tq|"So even if comes off as AI. It isn't."}}

::::::::::Dishonesty would not be conducive to communication and building an encyclopedia. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I... I actually didn't know you can't mark them as "minor edits" and don't cite a source. I usually use https://tophonetics.com/ and sometimes ChatGPT or Google Gemini. I am still learning how to use and improve Wikipedia. I honestly thank you for teaching me this. I am genuelly greatful. But I have to ask, why can't you mark them as "minor edits"? (I want to knoe why, and no. It's not to spite you, I actually want to improve and know why.) Vergil69420 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::...are those LLMs the "reliable references" you got the bad translations from? REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::... I tried to site it from a dictionary, but if I couldn't.. I thought they would be a reliable source. I guess I was wrong, wasn't I? Vergil69420 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::A dictionary will not tell you the original name of an album, you are inventing that by translating it into what you think is the original language. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Well, I tried to find a source.. and I couldn't find any for the original language... so I used some AI platform (ChatGPT I think?) To translate it. And I just assumed that was the language of the original band. If it wasn't I am sorry. Also, I didn't use Google Translate... why? Because it usually gives you a bad translation because of it's dumbass AI. Vergil69420 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Alright, fine I will not reply to you using an AI. I am replying as myself right now, alright? Now.. tell me more mistakes I made so I can improve. Vergil69420 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::On using WP:Minor "A good rule of thumb is that only edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content may be flagged as minor edits."

::::::::::::It should never be used along with any kind of AI or translation software. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::FINALLY!!! Thank you.. thank you for telling me what a "minor edit" is! Don't worry. I will not use AI again as a source. (Unless I am at gunpoint). So if I even *slightly* edit it, it still counts as an edit... I really didn't know that! Please, I am trying to get my anime "redemption arc" (I don't watch anime, I just know that is a thing), so... if you teach me. I will be on the right track. Vergil69420 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::At the top of your talk page, there is a "Learn more about editing" tutorial for beginners that was posted. Or you can go to :Help:Introduction. That documentation explains this as well as many other topics that are paramount for editors to know. I would start there in your "redemption arc". --Engineerchange (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Thanks man, I really appreciate it. I shall now focus on grammar fixes, spelling issues, and actual minor edits. And if you see me doing IPA again. Then that means I'm at gun point. You engineered me to change... (My corny jokes aren't funny, aren't they?) Vergil69420 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Before this discussion is truly worthy. I must ask... do you forgive me? And, do you think I will redeem myself? Vergil69420 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There are many people who started out a bit rockily and then became valuable contributors. The proof is in what you do now and in the future. You've been given some suggestions and I suggest you check them out. Hopefully you'll find an enjoyable way to be a productive contributor. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I actually thank you. You are another one who actually wants me to improve instead of drag me into the ground. Promise me, I will try my best. I will stop doing IPA and using AI. I will actually now improve Wikipedia with grammar! (sorry if I sound like a broken record). Thanks! Vergil69420 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Everyone makes mistakes. Just be open to improving and read some of the introductory policies and you can be a good contributor in no time. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Cheers aswell. I am stating this the very last time (I said it 9000 times already). I will never do IPA or use AI again, and I will do grammar **only**. We can honestly end this conversation now... there is really nothing else we can talk about. Vergil69420 (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Trying to improve grammar and tone may be risky for you and the encyclopedia. I'm guessing English is not your first language (we see above that your English spelling is unreliable and your phrasing sometimes unidiomatic), and we are already lucky enough to have some copy-editors who are highly proficient. You might do better to think about how you could improve the encyclopedia's content (though that too requires learning to use reliable sources with WP:DUE weight and WP:V-compliant referencing). NebY (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I was raised with both English and Russian when I was a child. And I was misspelling words because when I type fast (like in this discussion) I misspelled words, since I am on a phone (and I don't have Autocorrect active, so I can type slang without having to constantly fix it.) I just mistype when typing quickly. Vergil69420 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Perhaps you could help by self-reverting the AI slop you have previously added to articles. I have reverted 50 such edits, but there are perhaps 50 more to clean up. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Honestly? Good idea. Let me do ot right now. Vergil69420 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Alright, I already did it. Vergil69420 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thank you! 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::You're welcome! If I didn't care about Wikipedia, I wouldn't revert it. But I did, didn't I? Vergil69420 (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sbcm13 has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sbcm13#c-Sbcm13-20250319205400-2A02:8084:4F41:B700:9BC:C6A9:2085:515-20250319124900 warned before] about their edits, yet continues to commit disruptive edits. A non-exhaustive list of their recent disruptive edits: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_May_16&diff=prev&oldid=1290722591] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_April_25&diff=prev&oldid=1287389295] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_April_24&diff=prev&oldid=1287211690] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_March_19&diff=prev&oldid=1281500847] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_March_18&diff=prev&oldid=1281500875] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_March_18&diff=prev&oldid=1281282791]. There are about 10 more of these: {{User|Sbcm13}}. Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 18:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm surprised they weren't blocked for calling an editor a pro-terror vandal. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbcm13&diff=prev&oldid=1281348259] 74.254.224.102 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Regardless of the back-and-forth name calling, editors with fewer than 500 edits should not be making edits related to the Israel / Palestine CTOP. And Sbcm13 was made aware of that in March. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::All of the diffs I looked at appeared to just be adding the word 'allegedly' before the number of people killed in military actions?

::Would just adding a filter for that word be sufficient? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Here are some different ones: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2024_November_8&diff=prev&oldid=1256195266] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_January_25&diff=prev&oldid=1272078458] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2025_March_13&diff=prev&oldid=1280350907] Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it, yes, those are much more troubling and don't seem to make any attempt at WP:NPOV. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There's also the fact that early last November they made a sudden, severe swerve from neveronly having edited anything in the topic area once to only editing in it, and exclusively on Portal:Current Events. It makes me wonder if the account was compromised. On the off chance it wasn't I've merely pblocked indef from Portal: space, we'll see what happens next. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::They made POV changes to the portal starting in 2023.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2023_November_7&diff=prev&oldid=1184022767] It is just more frequent now. 74.254.224.102 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ahhh, good catch - I'd missed that on my look through the log. Thanks. (Tweaked my previous comment accordingly). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If there wasn't biased coverage, I wouldn't have to make these "disruptive" edits Sbcm13 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So when Israel doesn't uphold their end of a bargain, it's neutral, but when Hamas doesn't uphold their end of the bargain, I'm suddenly in violation? Interesting Sbcm13 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Regardless of who did or did not {{tqq|uphold their end of a bargain}} you're in violation of the ArbCom remedies for the ARBPIA topic area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Idk what that means Sbcm13 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It was explained to you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbcm13&diff=prev&oldid=1281559060 here]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Weird that an anonymous editor can come on to my talk page and insult me yet when I respond I'm the bad guy. Sounds familiar if you ask me tbh Sbcm13 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Nobody said anything about being bad, they pointed out that you are ignoring your prior warnings, violating policy, and editing articles that you are not allowed to, because you are not an extended-confirmed editor.

:::Insulting other editors will not make those policies go away, not even if you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You called a human "pro-terror" because they reverted your improper edit. You say this sounds familiar. Familiar to what exactly? 74.254.224.102 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Smm380}}

In January I created a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1175#User:Smm380_and_logged_out_editing report] due to Smm380 continuously editing while logged out despite multiple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smm380#December_2024 warnings] being given to them about this. They did not respond on their talk page until they were taken to ANI. They stated this was accidental and no action was taken. Despite this, it looks like they have continued to edit while logged out. They primarily edit the history of Ukraine article. See for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1283909000 this] POV change which looks to be from the same range.

Recently, I created a SPI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shahray report] due to a suspicion that a different editor (who edits the same topics) was socking. Pravoved198X was confirmed to Smm380 and only after were they caught did they decide to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pravoved198X&diff=prev&oldid=1289553911 edit] their user page to state that this was an alternative account.

Now, they decided to make an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1290690174 edit] related to the Russo-Ukraine war despite multiple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smm380#Note warnings] that they cannot make edits to this topic due to WP:RUSUKR. They acknowledged the restriction but like the warnings about socking, they have continued to ignore this. Mellk (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocking. Clear-cut RUSUKR violations, and the apparently rampant further attempts to avoid scrutiny and accountability mean that this goes straight to indef. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Does to it also make sense to block Pravoved198X as a sockpuppet? Mellk (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Good point, I've done so and left a comment in the SPI report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks again. Mellk (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = TPA revoked

| result = Speedy work by {{noping|Elli}} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{userlinks|FasterThanSpeed}}

Can An Admin please revoke this user's talk page access as he is miss using his talk page. Untamed1910 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given the talk page abuse was outright taunting "requesting" revoking TPA, I was debating protecting the talk page instead of revoking it. Might be something to consider for next time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|{{nac}} User:Rgregergrgegergrg has already been blockhammered by {{noping|DoubleGrazing}}. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Rgregergrgegergrg}}

This user vandalizing a using bad wordings to respond to others while he’s corrected, here is a log [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Short-beaked_echidna&action=history] also on his usertalk are series of warning but the user won’t stop. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 06:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:guys hes lying, he is the one making unconstructive edits and bad stuff, admins please ban chippla fr Rgregergrgegergrg (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Userlinks|Aju88}} is making unsourced POV edits (e.g. {{Diff2|1290839929}}) after final warning. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't look like they communicated on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aju88 their talk page] despite a number of warnings. A block should definitely be called for. They've made unsourced edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proprietors:_Kammath_%26_Kammath&diff=prev&oldid=1290839929 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence_(2013_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1290839785 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balyakalasakhi_(2014_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1290839537 here]. The user is adding stuff like "The film was a disaster in the box office". Very unhelpful and unsourced. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Going ahead and closing this as nothing for ANI to do here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

There is a suspected long-term abuse account vandalizing Wikipedia right now

The vandal would usually create accounts with "brainrot" usernames, such as "User:SlowerThanOhio", "User:DancingWithOhio", "User:SkibidiToiletInOhioToday" or "User:ILoveSkibidiOhioToilet" (which I assume is their main account), and then vandalize pages usually related to Wikipedia vandalism, like Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account, by replacing them with the Wikipedia article for Skibidi Toilet, the phrase "Goofy ahh brainrot :skull:" or just outright blanking them. They have also announced that they will continue vandalizing and that they have multiple sleeper accounts on the talk page of the first account that I mentioned (see hist). They have been vandalizing since at least late 2024/early 2025.

Beside the already mentioned accounts they also have other accounts, such as "User:NeverForgetToGoAround", "User:WhyAreWeHereToday", "User:ItsColdInNewYork", "User:Legoplanecrash5383", and "User:SineCosineTangentDisruptiom". RaschenTechner (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we might need to create a LTA page for this vandal, as they have been doing this for months now 2600:100E:B034:F79D:9C2A:CB47:9F3B:8B18 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Making new WP:LTA pages is out of vogue and it is best to just revert vandalism, WP:DENY recognition and move on. cyberdog958^Talk 15:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::They do need an LTA page. They say that they have many sleepers and that no one is going to stop them. They have been vandalizing for a long time now. In case of active long-term vandals, other Wikipedians need to know their modus operandi and act and revert them appropriately. You should be able to make good-faith Wikipedians know how such vandal accounts operate so that these could be reverted and blocked. "Deny recognition" should not be "Deny knowledge". RaschenTechner (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, I'm sure they would just love an LTA page. All they actually want is attention. This is exactly why WP:DENY exists. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What should be done then? RaschenTechner (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've come to my own conclusion about LTA pages. They can be useful for looking up details, but you can usually find their details littering Wikipedia when they are so persistent. These days I am firmly in the don't give them the acknowledgement they crave. I (mostly) refuse to call them by their LTA names and just report when they crop up. An LTA abuse page won't help uncover sleepers. An SPI would. Knitsey (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I should clarify, this is just my opinion and it has changed since a first started editing a few years ago. Knitsey (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I usually don't even tag them when I encounter them. WP:RBI works just fine for these middle-school mentalities. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::At this point, IMHO this vandal shouldn't even have TPA revoked, given their last account was demanding it on their talk page as part of their disruption. Instead block, protect the talk page, and move on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Meh. If someone vandalizes and asks to be blocked, we don't try to find a contrived solution to avoid blocking them. Revoking TPA whenever this person gets blocked should be fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think I found another one of their accounts: User:Pine2024. RaschenTechner (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, probably. Already blocked in February, and last edit out of checkuser timeframe, so already R, already B, best to I. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Given the Skibidi references in usernames and this account’s contribs, think there’s an argument to be made that {{user|AManSellingIceCream}} (see below) was probably another alt. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{user|AdieuSloth}} as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That account just tried blanking the ANI page (see hist). RaschenTechner (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I mean User:AdieuSloth tried blanking the page RaschenTechner (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As you can see by the vandalism of this page, they are loving the attention they now have. Knitsey (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I requested protection of the ANI on Wikipedia:RFPP. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Could we look at closing this thread. This attention has bought them here. The sooner it's closed an archived then they will move on elsewhere. Knitsey (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This could be a good idea. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe a SPI can be opened instead of an ANI discussion. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Maybe WP:RBI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|And we're done with this. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|The CW guy}}
• {{userlinks|Ceedub88}}

New account The CW guy claims to be sockpuppeteer Ceedub88 reborn, if anyone would like to take a look. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked. --Yamla (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Bbb23}} you rollbacked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290865784 my closure of this thread] like I'm a common vandal. Any reason why? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::IPs should not close threads at ANI, nor should editors who opened a thread close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::And that deserved a rollback without comment, which is reserved for common vandals, did it? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I apologize; if you do it in the future, I'll put in a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh good, a threat along with the apology. Thanks. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You just had a comment. Are you trying to pick a fight? Let it drop. Ravenswing 16:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is no threat in Bbb23's response. Cullen328 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

There is an editor who is using multiple IPs and persistently going to dozens of articles about New York City buildings, changing "New York City, United States" to "New York City, New York" without any explanation (or with a poor explanation). Several of these IPs have reinstated their edits multiple times across multiple articles. Just today, the following IP editors have been edit-warring to make these changes. (I have notified the following two IPs of this discussion.)

• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:21FA:1759:3FC9:832B}}
• {{IPuser|2605:8D80:324:6B8E:A902:62AF:FB27:CCEA}}

Normally I'd send this to another noticeboard, but this has been a pattern going back several months:

• {{IPuser|2605:8D80:402:6EBA:7410:CBFB:8DB2:515E}}
• {{IPuser|2605:8D80:404:E923:A4A2:B68C:7DC7:2AFA}}
• {{IPuser|2605:8D80:5133:774:A816:5ADC:E317:D4CD}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:20F1:2D0C:6AB:7F99}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:2972:1B95:CFA1:CBDC}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:2DA9:FC0D:786A:F47E}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:4CB:19B4:5058:64D6}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:40B7:66E5:7D54:107E}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:55E7:B39B:A1C2:EF4E}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:7CA9:D292:6E3E:249E}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:985D:75B4:8CC5:B2BA}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:A08F:AF70:A3E7:6DAE}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:B428:8A60:F4E7:DDCE}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:CC0E:D8FE:3BD8:D91E}}
• {{IPuser|2604:3D08:9476:BE00:F53A:8B2C:E6A0:9F2F}}

Some of these IP users do provide edit summaries, which seem to indicate that they think mentioning the country in an article written in American English is too "international" for some reason. For instance:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1989_New_York_City_Marathon&diff=prev&oldid=1283022421 Welcome to New York. It’s been waiting for you.]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiffany_and_Company_Building&diff=prev&oldid=1280531879 {{((}}AmE{{))}}] (referring to the American English template)
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldorf_Astoria_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=1266774072 American English]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royalton_Hotel&diff=prev&oldid=1266772161 this is not AmE]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Garden_Theatre&diff=prev&oldid=1283845138 too British for an AmE article]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broadhurst_Theatre&diff=prev&oldid=1283844993 I’ll explain. This article uses American English, and skipping to the country sounds too international]

These edits are spread across several months, and they usually happen in bursts. While the act of changing "New York City, United States" to "New York City, New York" isn't necessarily disruptive, I'm reporting this because they have never discussed this on the talk page, instead making several edits (in some cases, dozens at a time) with little to no explanation. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:As I was preparing this report, {{u|Daniel Quinlan}} blocked 2605:8D80:324:6B8E:A902:62AF:FB27:CCEA for edit warring. While I thank Daniel Quinlan for stopping the immediate disruption, I think there is a more persistent issue regarding these IPs, who have been sporadically edit-warring their preferred wording into various articles for months. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'll look into these addresses. Thanks for the report. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Done.

:* {{iprange|2604:3D08:9476:BE00::/64}} is blocked for 3 months due to a long-term pattern of disruptive editing.

:* {{iprange|2605:8D80:324:6B8E::/64}} is blocked for 1 week for the same reason.

:* {{iprange|2605:8D80:402::/48}} is too stale to block at this time.

:* {{iprange|2605:8d80:5133:774::/64}} is too stale to block at this time.

:There are a lot of related edits on those ranges (i.e., not just "New York") going back months. Someone familiar with the MOS may want to review the edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Before I start, I’m holding my hands up right now that I {{diff2|1290905574|breached 3RR}} without realising until it was too late… so first question - what’s the best course of action… leave as is or self-revert my 4rv?

{{userlinks|The Little Chinese Engine}} has been around for a while now (since late 2023). In that time, they have made precisely zero edits to the User Talk namespace, and no meaningful edits to Talk namespace save for some cosmetic changes and page moves. There have been numerous warnings left on their talk page, including for edit summaries (16% is a rotten score IMHO).

Recently, they have begun edit warring and continue their refusal to engage.

Note that I am including the IP editor {{userlinks|37.248.177.132}} here, as I strongly suspect it is the same editor logged out (same editing pattern, editing in the same areas, and their edits started at the same time as The Little Chinese Engine fell silent).

• Line 10 (Xi'an Metro): {{diff2|1290033725|Infobox image change}}, which was reverted by myself. They {{diff2|1290874964|reverted}} back to their preferred image with no edit summary or discussion. Two more reverts by the IP - {{diff2|1290881335}} and {{diff2|1290904295}}. This is where I’m wanting to come clean and admit I broke 3RR, for which I’m open for a trout slapping and advice on how to make good the mistake.
• British Rail Class 701 - {{diff2|1290228940|Infobox image change}}, again reverted by myself as in my opinion it was an inferior image. Again, {{diff2|1290814249|re-reverted}} with no edit summary or communication.

I’ve left a {{diff2|1290891259|message on their talk page}}, which has been summarily ignored… How do we get someone that chronically ignores talk pages to engage with the community?

In terms of my own conduct, I agree I’ve been too aggressive on reverting some of these image changes - I’m very much open to advice on how to better handle these things. Danners430 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Since you caught yourself violating 3RR, self-revert the violation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Wilco. Danners430 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Self-RVed and started a discussion on the talk page, which they should really have done themselves per WP:BRD, but I’m not in the mood to argue. Given their track records with using talk pages, the reason for my opening this ANI, though I’m not optimistic about them actually engaging. Danners430 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is it possible to get some advice on getting the user to engage in discussions? So far no response at all to the talk page notification... Danners430 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Sent packing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{Userlinks|77x1957602}}

New account that is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._A._P._J._Abdul_Kalam_Technical_University,_Lucknow&diff=prev&oldid=1290909306 edit warring] with ClueBot to change the name of an Indian university to Pajeet, a derogatory slur against Indians. The user has also used another slur in an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Romanian_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1290580209 edit summary]. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Should someone close the AfD they opened (with no rationale at all) - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Europe_Elects?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That was an easy close, since no rationale was given for the AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = SEMI-PROTECTED

| result = Tabaristan uprising has been semi-potected for a week by {{np|The Bushranger}} {{nac}} Agent 007 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

• {{IPlinks|37.211.52.87}}
• {{IPlinks|37.251.19.46}}
• {{articlelinks|Tabaristan uprising}}

Users only contributions (Special:Contributions/37.211.52.87) are changing the result of one page without good explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabaristan_uprising&diff=prev&oldid=1290912551] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabaristan_uprising&diff=prev&oldid=1290892200], also saying things like "araps" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tabaristan_uprising&diff=prev&oldid=1290909866] which from what I know isn't exactly a kind way of saying "arabs". Setergh (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note that the main IP here was 37.251.19.46. Semiprotected Tabaristan uprising for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|Dympies}}
• {{articlelinks|Sandeep Lamichhane}}

Dympies added negative BLP content to Sandeep Lamichhane,{{diff2|1290884770|18:16, 17 May 2025}} already after knowing that it shouldn't be added without prior discussion. See talk page and also {{diff2|1258657011|edit summary by ToBeFree}}. 2400:74E0:0:4329:65B5:51AA:A95C:49C (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, you must notify Dympies of this discussion. I’ve gone ahead and done so for you. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:At present there is discussion which has been occurring at Talk:Sandeep Lamichhane#Legal Allegations. In that discussion not a single editor supports the complete removal of the content on BLP grounds. Notably the IP has not participated in that discussion. Looking at the edit history of the article, aside from ToBeFree, it only appears to have been the IP address removing the content. I'd suggest given the circumstances and IPs lack of engagement in the talk discussion that defacto consensus exists for inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure about the content issue here, perhaps {{U|ToBeFree}} can share their current position. Aside from this, Dympies is currently topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dympies&diff=prev&oldid=1289384151] (ping {{u|Bishonen}}) but is regularly violating the topic ban. Here are some latest examples of his topic ban violations made in the past 24 hours:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pandukabhaya&diff=prev&oldid=1290870848 16:33, 17 May 2025] - This edit mentions Orissa and West Bengal, both are the states of India.
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhutan_national_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=1290970934 16:33, 17 May 2025] - Has mention of Indian and Pakistani team
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhutan_national_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=1290970962 07:43, 18 May 2025] - Mentions India
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhutan_national_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=1290971003 07:44, 18 May 2025] - Mentions India.

Not to point out disruptive edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pandukabhaya&diff=prev&oldid=1290871870 this] where Dympies has added PROD tag to delete the article of an undoubtedly notable historical figure by claiming the subject fails WP:GNG when a simple Google search brings significant coverage like [https://books.google.com/books?id=X9TeEcMi0e0C&pg=PA38 this]. I believe the meaning of any topic ban to be the final warning before indef block, rather than "now you can disrupt another area". Orientls (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support indef for continued TBAN violations. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the ping. The wording of WP:BLPRESTORE is {{tqq|If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.}} This applies during simple reverting edit wars, for example. It is less likely to apply as strictly if someone manually rewrites the content. I currently have no opinion about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing TBAN violations in most of those diffs. Removing a pointless section about the Bhutan cricket team which lists the flagicons of countries that a competition took place in previously, which includes India and Pakistan amongst many others, I don't see as an issue at all. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pandukabhaya&diff=prev&oldid=1290870848 This] one was probably not ideal, but again, it's removing an unsourced section in a non-IPA article which mentions an Indian state in passing; I would not be minded to sanction for this, but would suggest that Dympies is more careful. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Article in question draftified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

An IP User keep on removing speedy deletion tag instead of contesting it at the page High School DxD/Suggestive advertisement scandal Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Then your next step is to send the article to AFD, not to reinsert the speedy deletion tag. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Bgsu98}} I think you are confusing speedy deletion with a proposed deletion; if a proposed deletion tag is removed, then AFD is the next step. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I was just reading the text on the speedy deletion, but if I was mistaken, I apologize. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::AFD can be the next step, but the policy says "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used." It isn't exclusively the next step(as it is with a PROD). 331dot (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The article at issue is now at Draft:High School DxD/Suggestive advertisement scandal. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User {{user|Cats12r2!}} continues an edit war against multiple other editors at Spinosauridae despite multiple warnings on their talk page. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have clearly stated when I edited Spinosauridae that I did not want to engage in a edit war again. I have also taken on the warning about the edit wars on my page that is why I added that in the edit summary. Cats12r2! (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you wish to stop edit-warring, then you should self-revert your last edits to the article. Otherwise, your claim that you do not want to edit-war is meaningless.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I will have to think about that as there are still some trusted sources like Britannica and a few articles still say Spinosaurus could reach 20t and 18m.This is why I edited the article then people started changing back starting a edit war. Cats12r2! (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::While you're, um, thinking about that, I've blocked you from editing the article for two weeks. If after the block expires, you resume edit-warring, you risk being blocked indefinitely sitewide.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::OK I have replied to the block comment about requesting a unban from editing. If this will help I will self-revert back to the original article if that will improve anything to unblock me from editing? I am sorry I just wanted to add a wider size estimate for Spinosaurus. Cats12r2! (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Since you have blocked me I cant now. Cats12r2! (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I would normally take this to WP:SPI or WP:RFP, but I don't think either can handle this. Last year around March, I asked for help (at the sockpuppet board?) with an editor disruptively editing articles on king crabs (including Neolithodes, which is now semi-protected exclusively because of this editor). Their accounts and IPs were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. This editor has continued to reappear under different usernames and IP addresses. Their edits consist mostly of blatant factual errors, barely comprehensible prose, and crude original research, and they take so long to meticulously check, rewrite, and properly cite that it's easier to start from scratch (see example below). Their accounts have included {{u|Michael2176}} and at least six known sockpuppets (mistakenly absent from that category are {{u|Michael10020}} and {{u|Metty10001}}). The entire time, {{u|Mitch Ames}} has been vigilantly reverting their edits, and I've been succumbing to Cunningham's law and trying to expand out articles they've edited.

It's taken me so long to come here because the editor sincerely wants to improve these articles. Despite nothing but chaotic and disruptive editing, numerous instances of sockpuppetry over months, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paralomis&diff=prev&oldid=1259852761 being snide with] and even swearing at editors (they swore at Mitch in Filipino), they want these articles to be comprehensive. Since very few people maintain these chronically neglected articles, it was a unique form of motivation to keep going. This last week, I expanded Neolithodes brodiei and Lithodes richeri for this reason. Their editing has become progressively better-sourced and less hostile. My breaking points today were when I saw 1) Paralomis has had a poorly written 'Etymology' section cited to Wikipedia for the entire past month (I previously took hours to improve it as best I could for them), and 2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neolithodes_diomedeae&diff=prev&oldid=1290859489 this edit summary] – which is flattering but also feels like I'm being treated as a quasi-LLM. You can see in the second one that they use a good source and want to help, but now I either have to revert the edit and keep the source as a refidea or I have to parse this broken claim, try parsing a 63-page source written in Spanish (scanned, not plaintext), find if any of the claims are true (and to what extent), and then fully rewrite the prose and properly fill in the citation. These both represent the higher end of quality, and the pattern is that they don't stop until something is there.

I don't know what to do. With every single king crab article on my watchlist and with Mitch having done most of the work monitoring this, it's still too much. I've even – because they're a specific kind of WP:NOTHERE – considered asking for them to be unblocked on the condition that they just stick to one account and discuss their changes on the talk page instead of committing them, but this is delusional. They've done enough that they would never get an account back; even if they did, they don't speak English fluently enough to meaningfully help; and even if they did, I think they lack the patience to learn policies like WP:SYNTH instead of continuing to disrupt. I feel bad because they just want to enjoy the same thing I do. But I also feel like – since they lack a single contribution history – I have to paranoidly keep track of dozens of article histories to make sure nothing slipped through the cracks at the watchlist.

I'm bringing it up here because it feels like there has to be something done beyond just blocking 143.44.169.X for sockpuppetry, especially because they've popped up as an IPv6 before too (see Neolithodes flindersi edit history) and because they've had completely different IPs (see 1.37.86.159 and 112.198.98.61 in Paralomis edit history); I could be wrong, but it seems like IP blocks haven't affected them much anyway. I also don't think I can go to RFP with "pending changes/semi-protection indefinitely for nearly 100 articles pls thx" (especially given it's one person and that I'd hate to see non-disruptive activity on these articles shrink even more). {{u|HJ Mitchell}} is aware of this, but I'm hoping for a more long-term solution than roping them into a neverending game of whack-a-mole. I'm not seeking a specific remedy; instead, I'm hoping people more experienced than me can collectively come up with one. Ideally it'd take into account 1) the articles themselves, 2) their regular maintainers and patrollers, 3) the IPs and new editors who occasionally change them, and 4) yes, maybe even the disruptive editor.

PS: I'd have notified them, but they've used like four IPs in the last week. Should I ping the original Michael account? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:My concern with pending changes protection is the relative obscurity of the topic. A pending changes reviewer may not recognize the problem with the edit, as they’re not obvious vandalism, and accept it. I’ve seen this in some other topics. Semiprotection may be more appropriate, but I agree it is a burden to protect that many pages and would potentially slow improvement. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with {{u|rsjaffe}} that long term semi-protection, perhaps one year, of any specific king crab species article that has been disrupted is the best solution. I have no expertise although I have a general interest in tourism in Alaska, where eating at least one species of king crab is a "big deal". I think that there are roughly 40 species, and if there is general consensus that this is the best solution, then I hereby volunteer to be an administrator willing to implement semi-protection on evidence of disruption, starting with the articles mentioned in this report. I will be off-Wikipedia for roughly eight hours but can get back to this later. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Cullen328}} All the currently known taxa of king crab can be found at :Template:Lithodidae (I keep it pretty meticulously up-to-date). Paralithodes camtschaticus (red king crab), Paralithodes platypus (blue king crab), and Lithodes aequispinus (golden king crab) are the main ones in the English-speaking world, while several Paralomis and Lithodes species are big in South America (like Lithodes santolla). This editor mainly sticks to Neolithodes with occasional spillover to Paralomis and Lithodes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Where are they from? They should be encouraged to contribute to their native language’s wiki. If they care this much about extracting information from long sources about such a topic as king crabs, I’m sure they can contribute competently when there’s no language barrier. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::They're ostensibly from the Philippines. While the language barrier is a huge issue, I've never suggested they go to the Tagalog Wikipedia at tl.wikipedia.org since there are deeper problems than the language barrier: extensive sockpuppetry, incivility, and a willingness not to disrupt only if they get exactly what they want. If this were only related to the quality of their edits, then I would send them there in a heartbeat: things like citing sources correctly and ensuring factual accuracy are things that would be easier for them to learn from Tagalog editors, policies, and guidelines. (I imagine the reason they chose to edit here in the first place is because the Tagalog Wikipedia has such minimal coverage of crustaceans (let alone any of king crabs). But chronic, intractable behavioral problems carry over to other wikis, and offloading that to a much, much smaller wiki doesn't seem right to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|TheTechnician2}}, I have semi-protected the obvious targets. Feel free to post any others on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You meant {{u|TheTechnician27}}, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I meant {{u|TheTechnician27}}. One of my most common edit summaries is "Fixed typo", which usually means that I fixed my own typo. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I always spot mine just after hitting 'Publish changes'... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It feels like 50% of the edits I publish have the same energy as (SPOILER) Peter watching Gwen Stacy fall to her death in slow-motion in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. (Aside: even though editors made the right choice in killing the spoiler tag, sometimes I wish we had one to use on talk and other discussion pages.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=/64 blocked for 1 week. Normally such reports go to WP:AIV. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Even after multiple warnings and reverts, this particular IP is going on a spree vandalising the series of articles concerned with the Indian politics. User talk:2405:201:C418:C07B:31EF:3294:7AF6:9D72 User talk:2405:201:C418:C07B:FD7E:6C11:5D65:3711 456legendtalk 14:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Denied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|AManSellingIceCream}}

Misuse of talk page after being blocked by @Rsjaffe. Requesting that talk page editing access be revoked for that user. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Never mind, account globally locked. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

IP editor 71.78.3.70 has made repeated edits to List of 2025 albums attempting to add entries based on sources which do not validly claim that an album is being released in 2025, a hard requirement for the list. Despite multiple edit summaries (1, 2, 3) and a talk page warning (which probably should've been multiple; I didn't add one after the first hoping the edit summary would be enough, and I don't know why Mburrell didn't after the second), the editor came back one last time to add an already-rejected item yet again. I can also see that another edit of theirs was reverted on List of hard rock bands (N–Z) for a similar issue. I can understand making mistakes like that once because some of these sources aren't always easy to read to confirm what exactly they're saying, and knowing that the requirements are that specific may not be the easiest assumption to make, but surely any editor worth their salt would know what being reverted means, especially after it's happened that many times. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|result=Temporarily blocked by Callanecc. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 has refused to accept consensus decision/compromise on the Marty Supreme page and continuously reverts all edits to add irrelevant information not needed on the page. It has been ongoing for weeks now. I have sought out other editors to weigh in on the talk page (one user agreed to remove the information, second user was neutral and decided we should remove if we see fit but User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 has refused this decision and resorted to name calling and false accusations of personal relations with sought out editors. Please help with dispute resolution. It has gotten out of hand and resulted in non stop edit warring. Soe743edits (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please see the entire edit history of the page in question, as well as the talk page, and you'll see that User:Soe743edits is making some dangerous, slanted and ridiculously inaccurate accusations, both toward me, and toward what the general "consensus" was. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:It should be noted—again as per the Page's edit history— that I have only reverted User:Soe743edits's edits (and none of the other contributing editor), because time and time again they insist on tailoring the page to their needs; since they mostly edit pages related to Timothée Chalamet, I think it's fair to say that there may be more than a fair bit of bias at play here from their side as well. Though they will deny this. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Also never called anyone names, never insulted, and was entirely respectful and polite until I started receiving aggression from the other side. It's also completely inaccurate that "one user agreed to remove the information, second user was neutral and decided we should remove if we see fit". And I did not refuse any decision. In fact, quote the contrary, I actually abided by the compromised consensus of what another editor contributed to the page when they stepped in to dumb down the information. It's only User:Soe743edits that had a problem with the information, and once again decided to meddle, take matters into their own hands, and act in a not-agreed-upon gesture to retool the information to satisfy them, and not the page. Not sure why they're being so persistent either, but it's elevated beyond annoying. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Absolutely agree on reading through the talk page as it’s very clear what has transpired. 2 users agreed on removing the information completely, Myself and User:Noonehasthisnameithink. While User:IXCat was neutral, and reduced the information to a shorter paragraph, but later agreed to remove the information if we saw fit. Leaving 3 users for removing against just one for leaving it up.

::I have absolute no intention to keep exchanging words with User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 anymore or try to reason with them because judging from their talk page, this isn’t their 1st rodeo. They’ve been warned for disruptive editing repeatedly.

::We have also tried to resolve this on the talk page to no avail, but instead I have been subject to false accusations of personal relations with any editors that have supported the removal of this irrelevant information, aggressive words, misgendering etc. I also don’t think the amount of times I edit for Actor Timothee Chalamet has anything to do with common sense on relevant information being included on an article page. I also edit for Chinese actor Chen Zheyuan but I guess you wouldn’t know this since it doesn’t suit your narrative.

::Also you claim you only reverted my edits which is a blatant lie. You have reverted edits from several users that removed this irrelevant information including User:Noonehasthisnameithink, after a consensus decision.

::I requested a dispute resolution because I’ve had it up to here with the nonstop edit warring and aggression. It’s taking a mental toll on me now. Editors like this with frequent disruptive issues shouldn’t be allowed to exist here on Wikipedia, constantly disrupting everyone else’s peace. It’s not right. Please review the talk page and help with a resolution soon. Soe743edits (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::An admin just weighed in on the talk page stating that it would be fair to stick to the consensus on the talk page until other editors weigh in. I hope this is clear enough of an additional opinion for you or do you plan to further accuse me of personal relations with this admin as well?

::I will proceed to remove the information completely until other editors and consensus decide otherwise.

::Have a pleasant evening. Soe743edits (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{non-administrator comment}} ZanderAlbatraz1145 appears to be tempblocked for edit warring. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

(I don't know if this would fit on the edit war noticeboard since it's not really that severe, though since it is 3 people in total third opinion would not work)

See Talk:Chinese police overseas service stations#Regarding an edit war for more

User:Avatar317 and User:Amigao have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_police_overseas_service_stations&oldid=1290639480 reverted a revision of the article] multiple times. User:Avatar317 has also failed to adhere to WP:AGF and has falsely accused me of doing "NPOV edits" and "WP:PROMOTION".

Summary of my revision

• Changed the lead summary to have less WP:DUEWEIGHT, simplifying it, and also putting the official name first
• Adding the stated use of Overseas 110 (This is commonly done on articles about government programs and agencies, such as Federal Flight Deck Officer and China Maritime Safety Administration, and does not count as "WP:PROMOTION")
• Renamed the "history" section to the "controversies" section to be more accurate since it was practically a controversy section anyways and lacked anything outside of controversies.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I see nothing out of line on their responses on the talk page. What is out of line is you continually seeking to restore your version, even with you failing to gain consensus for your changes. You're also misrepresenting their words. In no edit I've seen -- in the article, on the article's talk page, on your talk page -- did Avatar317 accuse you of making NPOV edits, and their mention of WP:PROMOTION referred to the organization, not to you. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290768792&oldid=1290648681&title=Talk%3AChinese_police_overseas_service_stations] Rather, you've accused them of lack of good faith [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290644102&oldid=1290639680&title=User_talk%3AThehistorianisaac], as well as calling them liars [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290645339&oldid=1290644411&title=User_talk%3AThehistorianisaac].

Beyond that, you've also stated that they failed to explain why your edits were incorrect. That's just not true; you just don't LIKE their explanations. Fair enough, you're not compelled to do so, but in like fashion, they are not required to get your permission before editing your work. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes you're on the losing side of consensus, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 04:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Ravenswing

::The NPOV edit claims are in the edit summary. The explanation they gave is simply not true and cite things taken out of context. As for me accusing them of lying, it can basically be agreed upon that 2 people is not "consensus". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Two people is certainly "multiple," which is what you said was a lie (not "consensus"). As I see it, the reasons you were reverted were given. Just looking at reverts of your content by the editors you've accused.

:::- When you added the bias tag to the article in question, Avatar317 reverted it with the explanation that random, unexplained tags were unhelpful.

:::- To your next edit, Avatar317 reverted it with the explanation that "This entire article IS critical of these, because the SOURCES say that. In Wikipedia, we follow sources, and if you have problems with sources, take that up with the journalists."

:::- You repeated your changes, and Amigao reverted it, and asked you to take it to talk rather than edit warring. Avatar317 gave an additional description after you took it to the talk page.

:::- You then made the change again stating you weren't given a reason, despite having stated their reasons given three times. It was reverted, with another request that you continue the discussion on talk.

:::- You used Wikipedia as a reliable source. This was reverted, with the correct explanation that Wikipedia is not a source for itself.

:::You made edits, were given explanations and encouraged to discuss. While you did discuss (eventually), you continued to edit war in your versions while the discussion was ongoing. You clearly made a false accusation of a lie and you're continually to falsely say the reverts of your changes were unexplained. The only behaviors that could change this from a content dispute to a conduct dispute are yours. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::For the last one, that was on a seperate article and due to a careless mistake. Additionally, Actual Discussions never really started before I ended reverting. For the reasons, many of them were policies taken out of context or completely inapplicable in this case, or just overall pretty vague. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I apologize for my conduct during the dispute; However, I still dispute the use of the current revision over my previous revision per POV and Undue weight concerns. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You're allowed to dispute the content, just as others are allowed to dispute the removal. You're the one who escalated a simple disagreement into an edit war. So build consensus on the talk page and then make the changes, if you can demonstrated you've built such a consensus. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::As mentioned, disputing the content, and the removal of the content, is fine. WP:BRD however applies - simply restoring the content isn't a good thing. You boldly added content, it was reverted, the next step is discussion to build consensus, not edit-warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Dispute away, but with four editors now disagreeing with you, that's a good deal stronger than your unilateral POV. At the end of the day, your certitude that you're right and everyone else is wrong isn't very relevant. Ravenswing 14:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to bring to attention a concern regarding persistent edits by {{u|Ramu Sundaram}} on the article Retro (film). The user has repeatedly added sources that do not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:ICTFSOURCES, which sets the sourcing standards for Indian cinema articles.

I have previously addressed this concern on the user's talk page and attempted to engage with the user to explain the issue, but the same problematic sources continue to be added. At this point, I believe further guidance from an administrator may be helpful in resolving the situation constructively.

Tonyy Starkk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reporting User:Nyxaros for making a personal attack at me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nyxaros&diff=prev&oldid=1291149963 in their edit summary], telling me to "learn how to write better articles". The personal attack was over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Destination_Bloodlines&diff=prev&oldid=1291147474 this revision] of theirs in which they unfairly labelled and reverted my edits on Final Destination Bloodlines as being "unnecessary and unconstructive" when it actually complies with the Manual of Style for films, MOS:ACCLAIMED. Ironically, Nyxaros [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANyxaros has been blocked before] for the same reasons they levy against me. Upon a glance of their edit history, Nyxaros also has an attitude in how they deal with other editors, especially those who edit Final Destination-related articles, of which they may be claiming ownership. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:It took a little digging to find the locus of this dispute but I think there's a small disconnect between the two of you. Your argument is that your copy was good because it was MOS compliant. Theirs was that it was not because it was WP:SYNTH. I would suggest both of you should step back and find some perspective before this content dispute rises to the point where it is appropriate for this board but I don't think it's there yet. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{nao}} {{ec}} To be fair, it was in response to being told to {{tq|keep your eyes peeled}}. Also to be fair, that last block was nearly six years ago. And as for WP:OWN, well; they haven't edited Final Destination since 2021; they've got four edits to I, two to II (last in 2023), five to III (over eight years), seven to IV (last in 2022) and five to V (over nine years). Admittedly the bulk of their edits are to VI, and contains choice edit summaries such as "your writing is poor" and "learn how to write"—similar to what was levelled at ye. To be honest though, it doesn't really seem to be worth losing one's wig over, let alone ANI-worthiness. Still, mileage varies of course. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:How is writing better articles a personal attack? You really should learn how to write articles, including avoiding making false claims and WP:SYNTH. This particular issue is unrelated to MOS:ACCLAIM. It appears there is also a lack of understanding regarding the reason for the edit's reversion on your part. There is no need to open discussions that are not worth wasting anyone's time and your baseless acussations against me will not change the situation here... ภץאคгöร 13:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Nyxaros}} Because it's obviously not a constructive feedback but a form of retaliation, a claim of superiority. {{xt|The film received the strongest critical reception of the franchise}}. Could you explain what makes this any better? Like, which one was the stronger? And which one was the strong? Because AFAIK, the previous films were not as well received as Bloodlines. At least mine makes it clear that the movie did receive positive reviews and it became the best-reviewed installment because of that. And I'm not sure why you insist on using that dubious revision of yours when the exact same thing (save for that "critical acclaim" bit) had already been written in the lede even before I touched the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Destination_Bloodlines&diff=prev&oldid=1291119148 see here]). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"a claim of superiority"? Not my problem. The RT editorial source calls it "the strongest critical reception" of the films in the franchise (meaning that it has the highest/best/most positive ratings/reviews) and the article states as such. No mention of "has received generally positive reviews since its release..." (obviously a bad paraphrase of Metascore). Again, this is not about MOS:ACCLAIM. Someone changed it to "acclaim" and copied the phrase from the lead and then another editor quckly reverted it. It's entirely unrelated to your edit and my revert. One can just focus on WP:WBA instead of complaining for nothing. ภץאคгöร 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See? You're seething even on the ANI noticeboard. You can always calm down and take your own advice. Bye. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{reply|Nineteen Ninety-Four guy}} hi, me again. What d'you mean, "Bye"? —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, it's kinda wild. They disregarded my edit summary, responded with hostility, made unfounded accusations, and are now alleging that I am "seething"? I don't understand it. Oh well. ภץאคгöร 14:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The closer should regard this, as think, as an example of WP:GRENADE (an essay of {{u|The Bushranger}}'s which should definitely see wider circulation); having dragged Nyxaros to WP:ANI, 1994guy then accuses Nyxaros of "seething" at the very noticeboard 1994guy themself dragged Nyxaros to, and having done so, 1994guy simply walks away. Not a great look. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Unhatting just to summarize the events that occurred in this discussion? Are you calling for some kind of sanction or what am I missing? GabberFlasted (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Unfortunately, it is perfectly possible for the reporter's own behavoir to be examined also; it's certainly not very nice to be dragged to ANI for no reason, and I don't think we should encourage it. However, I respect your original intentions in hatting. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The content portion of the dispute should be discussed on the article talk page. I don't see that one was tried yet by either party. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's not a personal attack, a personal attack is an attack on your character, they said you need to write better articles, which might be rude but it's not a personal attack. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think this entire thing should be closed with a round of trout. More heat than light is right. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree that {{u|Nineteen Ninety-Four guy}} probably doesn't need much more than a trouting for bringing this here, although an acknowledgment that the original filing wasn't the greatest idea would be positive (albeit not mandated). They have, after all, been in this site long enough to know :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:17, 19 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)

: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)

{{userlinks|M1rrorCr0ss}} had, on 15th May, moved List of members of the 1st Lok Sabha through 18th LS to the format "List of MPs elected in the yyyy Indian general election" disregarding the fact that the articles list all members ever elected to that sitting of the parliament across its 4 years (including by-elections). I warned them at their talk page to use WP:RM or discuss beforehand at WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics before making radical changes like this.

Yesterday, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=M1rrorCr0ss&offset=20250519023300%7C169875963&limit=213 they moved a total of 208 pages], typically of the form "nth [state] Assembly" to "[state] Assembly, yyyy–yyyy session", without any discussion. Even the summary "Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator" is canned and doesn't explain the moves performed. Their moves not only disregard longstanding convention used by the concerned Assemblies themselves, they also disregard longstanding Wikipedia convention of identifying legislatures by ordinal numbers. Furthermore, it fails to recognise that the whole 5-year term is not a single session, but that every year is typically divided into 3 sessions: Budget, Monsoon, Winter, with provisions to enable the state Governor to call emergency sessions when appropriate, which means that one full term Assembly actually has 15 or more sessions.

I hope that they meant well, but their total disregard of all conventions and standards when moving articles is causing considerable damage to Wikipedia, and also to those who have to clean all the mess after its done. I request that M1rrorCr0ss be banned from moving any page, and that they be required to go through WP:RM for each one of their moves. Thank you. 14:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Edited: —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:At the very least, they should have stopped moving pages once you objected. Not that it is an excuse for their behavior, but they are a fairly new user, since April 2025. If they won't stop voluntarily, then sanctions may be warranted. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|M1rrorCr0ss}} Doing moves BOLDly will be subject to reverts and potential sanctions, so I'd suggest you stick to RMs with discussion to avoid that. I'd suggest taking a look at WP:RMCM; it has instructions on how to request a move on multiple pages in a single nomination. Departure– (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this — I’d like to offer some context behind the moves I made and also clarify a few points that may have been misunderstood.

Let me start with the Lok Sabha article renamings. The main reason I moved those pages from titles like “List of members of the 1st Lok Sabha” to “List of MPs elected in the [year] Indian general election” was because I believed it would improve clarity and accessibility for a broader audience. Most casual readers — especially those unfamiliar with the ordinal numbering of Indian legislatures — are more likely to search for and understand a title that references the election year, rather than “18th Lok Sabha.” This is a common editorial choice on other Wikipedias as well. For example, in the UK, there’s “MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election,” and in the United States, “Members of the United States House of Representatives elected in the 2020 elections.” These articles, just like the Lok Sabha ones, continue to include by-election winners and members who joined mid-term. The title simply reflects the legislature as shaped by the general election, which is what most readers associate it with.

On the issue of state legislative assemblies, there seems to be a concern about my use of the word “session” in page titles like “Punjab Assembly, 2022–2027 session.” I want to be very clear here: I was not referring to sittings like Budget or Monsoon sessions, which happen within each year. I was using “session” the way it’s used in many established legislatures — to mean the full legislative term. This is not unusual. In fact, U.S. state legislatures regularly use “session” to refer to multi-year terms. For example, the California State Legislature refers to its full term as the “2023–2024 session.” It’s a standard naming convention in many places, and it’s accurate in context.

I understand that in India, the term “term” might be more commonly used than “session” for a full five-year assembly, but “session” is also perfectly valid — especially in a global encyclopedic setting where consistency and recognizability matter. The goal was to modernize and standardize titles in a way that aligns with global practice while making them more reader-friendly.

There was certainly no intention to disregard consensus or disrupt existing structures. I acted in good faith, believing that the existing naming conventions had room for improvement and that these changes could be helpful. That said, I absolutely understand the need for discussion and will be more careful to seek wider input in the future. If the consensus is to revert or adjust, I’m happy to help with that too.

But I do hope that this explanation makes clear that the changes were thoughtful and informed, not careless or disruptive. I’m always open to collaborating to find the best possible outcomes for Wikipedia and its readers.M1rrorCr0ss 15:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not another Chat-GPT answer please. There is no such article as Members of the United States House of Representatives elected in the 2020 elections, its your LLM hallucinating. Secondly, Indian state legislatures are not situated in California, and fwiw even the US Congress terms are ordinally numbered, eg, 118th United States Congress. And in any case, these titles are not written in an archaic variety of English, your moves do not "modernize" the titles whatsoever, that's another Chat-GPT garbage point. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::This response at least contains {{green|I absolutely understand the need for discussion and will be more careful to seek wider input in the future}}, which, AI generated or not, should be taken as accepting responsibility for finding consensus for any future moves. This does not preclude any potential direct page-move sanctions, however, especially given previous warnings (could you link the diffs for those, CX Zoom?). Departure– (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Special:Diff/1290551927#Please stop making disruptive page moves. "{{tq|I’ll be more careful with moves like that going forward and will go through proper discussion or RM}}". —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for linking that. I found this in the revision history, them removing the notice, which means they've seen and acknowledged it (with or without the AI-generated response), but the removal came before another large batch of undiscussed moves. I'd be in favor of sanctions as they've been given more than enough WP:ROPE in my eyes. An AI response saying they'll stop does not in any way mean they've proofread or have any intention of actually stopping, so for that, I'd support a ban from directly moving pages for now, with any potential moves needing to go through RM discussions from now. That's what they said they'd do before and it's now disrupting the project. Departure– (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Given that the controversial moves came after @M1rrorCr0ss agreed to go through discussion or RM first, I have blocked them from moving pages to prevent further disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Atop|No one on the article Talk page agrees with the OP. No reason to bring it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I recently came across the page Owen Benjamin and immediately the lead jumped out at me. It turns out that {{user|Solo4701}} had inserted the label "neo-Nazi" to this person, first in January 2024 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Benjamin&diff=prev&oldid=1198673316 Link] and then again in February [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Benjamin&diff=prev&oldid=1202138617 Link] after they were reverted. For some reason they denied they ever added this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Owen_Benjamin&diff=prev&oldid=1290863293 Link]), even though the diffs clearly showed they did. I then looked at the sources they inserted to support the addition. None of the sources referred to Benjamin as a Nazi in any way, and the sources they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Benjamin&diff=prev&oldid=1202150102 later added], apparently to supplement the previous ones, don't even contain the word "nazi". Yesterday, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Owen_Benjamin&diff=prev&oldid=1290890313 told the user about this issue] and explained them the importance of accurate sourcing. The user did not respond, and today I saw that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Benjamin&diff=1291171506&oldid=1290862051 added the label again], this time citing the ADL of all things https://www.adl.org/resources/article/owen-benjamin-what-you-need-know which, as it turns out, DOES NOT SUPPORT IT EITHER. Since the user didn't respond to my initial request I am bringing this matter here. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:1978:486C:FEEE:6A21 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

On the article Bangladeshis, In this diff Special:Diff/1287299123 the user claimed I'm doing "vandalism" and did some attack literally on the edit summary even after consensus was reached by several users on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Government census which is old. After a 3rd user finally reverted to the stable version, suddenly a sock [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladeshis&diff=prev&oldid=1291080439 arrived] but as i reported him, Darkedgeblood says " highly recommend the authority to take action against this user and remove him from the website for such actions." i agree i might have caught up on some edit warring but i tried my best to discuss in talk page although the user would still keep reverting with bad faith. Furthermore he even told me I should be uploading a research paper to bring the stable version of page (Talk:Bangladeshis#Bangladeshis in India and Pakistan).. Note that several editors suggested to keep the stable version here already . the user also has a history of terming everything as vandalism whatever he opposes and uses ai chatbot (see Here aswell) WinKyaw (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's an arguable legal threat by {{user|Darkedgeblood}} at Special:Diff/1291144294. @Win Kyaw, you must notify users concerned with AN/I threads. I will do so for you. Departure– (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::That diff sounds like an appeal to Wikipedia administrators to block user. Does not sound like legal threat to me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{green|I highly recommend the authority to take action against this user and remove him from the website for such actions}} is the direct quote, and I think it could go either way. It's worded in a more legal sense anyhow, especially "take action". The vague "the authority" is what makes this arguably an NLT issue for me. Departure– (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::rsjaffe is right. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I concur that it likely isn't a legal threat, but it's still not a productive comment. Thanks for pointing that out and clarifying, rsjaffe. I'm going to step away from this thread now. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think I was notified of this because of my involvement at RSN and my re-instatement of the disputed content. This issue might have something to do with the current disputes between India and Bangladesh around migration and citizenship status. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Need an admin to extended-protect Wp:Popular pages and block a sock ASAP. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

: Done by EvergreenFir. And I've fully WP:SELDELed the history to deny recognition. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{checkuser|Whirlingmerc}}

Whirlingmerc is inserting large amounts of material focused on one POV across multiple articles in the biblical space. I haven't come across any edits from this user that are free of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

User has previously been warned about violations about a number of policies on their talk page.

I believe these are good faith edits, but the editor has not demonstrated that they are able to edit in a way that conforms to WP writing and sourcing expectations.

The large volume of material and edits makes it difficult to distill their editing style into a few examples, selected diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plagues_of_Egypt&diff=prev&oldid=1291149748 deletes "In Jewish tradition" and introduces undue weight with " particularly among evangelical and Reformed theologians"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahab&diff=prev&oldid=1290943270undue "particularly in Evangelical and Reformed traditions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_(Genesis)&diff=prev&oldid=1290781337#Christian_tradition this material presented in this edit (typology, Calvin) was already present in the Christianity subsection in the 3 previous paragraphs to this addition, the edit serves to add weight to a POV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_and_Esau&diff=prev&oldid=1290986807 adds a Christian interpretation subsection to an article that doesn't have any other religion-specific subsections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cain_and_Abel&diff=prev&oldid=1289766687 Essentially all of this user's edits rely solely on biblical references and original research, this is one example among dozens

Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Whirlingmerc is apparently unable to abide by our policy against original research. They have been warned repeatedly against NOR violations, but they continue to consider their own analysis worthy of contribution to the encyclopedia. I think this problem has no solution except for blocking the user indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ll get straight to the point. The Wikipedia page of Bedros Kapamajian is subject to censure. A user is trying to remove my sourced edits which he tries to justify by linking it toWP:GS/AA. The problem is that this has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is an ottoman major of Armenian origin which lived between 19-20th centuries whereas the General Sanction status is about the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan (which they managed to link to 1915 events for a reason I still don’t know).

The user deleted my sourced content because he consider them to be only « denialists » one. Ironically, he even deleted a Armenian source along with french one (I am saying this because he’s certainly of Armenian origin and may have prejudices against Turkish people).

But I have to know something. Is Wikipedia a neutral website ? Isn’t a neutral website supposed to allow every point of view about a subject (especially when this one is controversial) ? Why this user (which is an « extender confirmed » one) close his eyes when it come to something that is likely not pleasing him ?

If he has something to say against he must come with sources that says the opposite of what I gave (even though I don’t think he will be able to…)

I call for justice. Let me still hope for Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia… Bosphore9 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:In lieu of any formal input, I'll draw attention to this edit by Bosphore9 on the Bedros Kapamajian page with this summary: {{green|Suppression of sourced contents without any valuable justification. This subject has nothing to do with Azerbaijan nor Armenia. Also this happened before the so-called "Armenian genocide" so it's nothing have to do with this. You can not delete sourced content like that.}} (bold emphasis mine). Departure– (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:GS/AA is not limited to only 1915 and clearly applies to this article.

:The article is also under extended-confirmed restriction, you would need to have 500 edits to be able to edit it, because of it's relation to a contentious topic. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry but I doesn’t. The subject has nothing to do with 1915 events nor Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict. Why does the user from this community put the article to extended-confirmed restriction ? I guess that you know the reason. Even though I don’t have 500 edits I am not a newbie. Because he likely can’t contradict me with sources he’s using his power to avoid me to express. This is nothing but censure. Also as I said he even deleted an Armenian source (Kapriel Serope Papazian’s book). Does this user even consider Papazian as a « denialist » ? Maybe he does, I don’t know… Bosphore9 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction." (emphasis mine) The article is not required to be explicitly about the genocide or the Armenia/Azerbaijan wars to be subject to GS/AA. If you do not have 500 edits, you should not be editing that article, full stop, whether or not you think you're right. Ravenswing 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You don't want it to apply, that does not mean that it doesn't. The user you reported is not the one who put it in restriction, please stop making vague accusations about conspiracies.

:::You have 12 edits. You are a newbie, that's why you don't understand WP:GS/AA and how it applies.

:::{{tq|Many people attended Mayor Kapamajian's funeral, including foreign consuls, Van Armenians, and residents of Van who weren't Armenian. He was buried in the Armenian cemetery in the Bağlar district.}}

:::{{tq|After Kapamajian's assassination, all opposition to Dashnaks and their policies by Armenians ceased}}

:::Being assassinated by one of the sides in the conflict does indeed mean that the article is related to the conflict. Nothing in the restrictions say it has to be 1915 events specifically. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::From their talk page: {{green|I know that I don’t have enough edits to reach 500 but I’m a member of this website for years and I can assume that I’m not a newbie at all [...] I’m almost sure he will find a way to make me stop editing which is against NPOV principe of Wikipedia.}}

::::Bosphore9, sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee overrule community consensus and any individual editor. They are not bound to policy in the same way that editors are, and editors are expected to edit around their sanctions, in this case 500 edits / one month old account. The editing restriction is to prevent disruption and to help strengthen policies of verifications and the handling of consensus claims (per WP:V and WP:NPOV), and ArbCom has determined that restricting access to editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed, including Bedros Kapamajian, is the best outcome to uphold this. You don't have the edits required to work within this sanction. The page should be formally protected per CTOP, though. Departure– (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, this is to report that a recent version of {{User|Sambuyya}}'s page located at {{diff|User:Sambuyya|diff=1291203500|label=this diff}} may be WP:PROMO in nature. They blanked the page since. Just thought someone should know. Thanks! » Gommeh 18:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seems like EvergreenFir speedy deleted the page before I was able to notify the user lol. They probably didn't see this discussion. Thanks @EvergreenFir! » Gommeh 18:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Gommeh, such reports can go to WP:UAA in the future. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I was not sure about that seeing as IMO only usernames that themselves are promotional (which "Sambuyya" is not) should go to UAA. Since the user page was promotional and not the username, I posted here instead. » Gommeh 19:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Wasting huge amounts of time at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conversion_therapy#Proposal_to_Clarify_%22Pseudoscientific%22_Label_for_Neutrality by trying to WP:SEALION in outdated information in support of a homophobic pseudoscience, plus thinly veiled transphobic trolling on userpage (“My pronouns are red/white/blue”) and general combative/trollish/immature attitude. --Dronebogus (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This user (@User talk:Adamibntaymiyya) is constantly insulting during their reverts (WP:NPA). They have been warned multiple times ({{Userlinks|ExampleUser}} did so on their talkpage), and decided to keep on for whatever reason. It is enough. edit: it keeps happening on the article Ibn Taimiyya best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)