Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Charlycrs

{{atop|1=Talk page has been fully protected. Further discussion here is likely only to increase heat and decrease light. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::Yeah, I think archiving it is for the best. She was blocked nearly two years ago; it having turned into a bulleted support/oppose list makes me think "not the place". SWinxy (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• you are all children grow up. this behavior is below you. I have yet to see anyone invoke a policy based reason to commandeer BHGs TP. And fwiw im against this trend of manually killing deletion and other such templates on banned users' pages. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Trout for Ohana. GraveDancing and edit warring is not the behaviour I expect from an administrator. Even if they think they're right, being right isn't enough. Nobody (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• I think the archiving has resolved everything that's necessary, and has achieved the correct result. As Floquenbeam has pointed out, most of the support messages were left ~contemporaneously―only three have been left this year—so few editors now will be inconvenienced, while the gravedancing (the bolded oppose that started this) has been removed and will not be reinstated. I also note for the record that only the said gravedancing and the subsequent edit war (ironically by which time I was AFK) have come in for substantive critical comment. I pass no comment on the value or otherwise of advocating BHG's return on her own talk, as, of course, I never did so myself or indeed expressed such a view publicly ("bolded" or otherwise). But I do thank everyone involved for focussing on the pertinent issues in resolving this business. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} Wait, I said what? When? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ah! I think you meant Black Kite. Mixing us up is a compliment to me, and an insult to BK... Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{abot}}

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

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

: Forgive me for my lack of Wikipedia knowledge, but just reading through this, if the community wants her unbanned, can't you all just make an appeal to Arbcom? Given the stress involved with going to a place like that, I could understand why Brown Haired Girl wouldn't want to initiate an appeal herself. Especially since it seems like the Wikipedia community needs her more than she needs Wikipedia. It seems to me that the reasons for her block are suitable for public discussion. So why doesn't someone go to WP:ARCA and create a request so that she can be unblocked? 128.193.8.41 (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Mathglot}} Since I think you were the one who made the original You Can Come Back message (sorry if I did that wrong). Anyways, as someone who reads Wikipedia drama noticeboards for fun from time to time, it would warm my heart quite a lot to see a positive resolution to something for once. 128.193.8.41 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, an unregistered user just randomly happened across ANI "just asking questions" and to tell us how much we need BHG. Sure. Recommend closing this thread. 128.193, if you're a troll seeking to start a "BHG: Good or bad?" flame war then nice try, but on the 1% chance you are an actual Wikipedia newbie who just happened to stumble across ANI, go read all the text from the ArbCom cases in the archives. SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Different person and just wanting to second IP's whole "lurking noticeboards" and "wanting a positive resolution" thing as well.2001:EE0:1AB0:AFF6:B34F:A443:433B:4140 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Gravedancing is not cool. Neither is leaving fawning tributes for an arbcom-banned user telling her she did nothing wrong. I’ve seen people come back from bans, but feeding the delusions that got them banned is unhelpful and disrespectful to all the people they hurt in the process. Maybe we should just lock all talk pages for banned users who have shown no interest in reforming and returning. Dronebogus (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Support this is a reasonable proposal 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Made an idea lab proposal here Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Also, I propose everyone who voted “support” (or “oppose”, for that matter, even though I know nobody did) on the fake “should BHG be allowed back” poll be trouted. Trouting is a stupid concept I don’t ordinarily use but a bunch of users who I normally respect straw polling to un-ban a banned user is also a stupid concept deserving of an equally stupid admonishment. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I would hope as Wikipedians we could hold two things to be true at the same time. Lots of people are going to be sad at losing BHG from the community and want her back and lots of people are going to believe it's good that she has been banned given her behavior. I personally hold a little of both for myself since I personally am sad to have lost the good she offered for many many years, but despite that ultimately voted to support her ban. Even for the people who aren't as divided as I am about it I would hope there could be respect and understanding of the people who feel differently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There is a significant difference between feeling sad about someone you considered a friend and/or whose good work you respected and expressing that feeling in a way that ignores, downplays (or in a minority of cases borderline gaslights) the feelings of those whose experience of that editor was different to your own. Gravedancing, vilifying and glorifying a banned editor are all equally inappropriate and we should respond to them in the same way, regardless of which you personally feel is the more appropriate in any given situation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't disagree with anything you've written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Starting what’s basically a #freeBHG/#BHGdidnothingwrong campaign is not expressing earnest sadness and disappointment at losing a good contributor because they couldn’t behave appropriately. I think nearly everyone who had even a passing acquaintance with BHG is in the latter category, but nobody has any good reason to be in the former category, and it’s especially disappointing that so many good users seem to not only be in it but are proud of that fact. Dronebogus (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::People are allowed to believe that a user shouldn't have been blocked or banned, and they are allowed to say so. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::See my reply to Barkeep, everything I said there applies equally to your comment. Thryduulf (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• {{userlinks|TurboSuperA+}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:# whether evidence was received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{atop

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

}}

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

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

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

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

{{abot}}

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

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

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

{{atopy

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

}}

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

{{abot}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support topic ban Per Chicdat and evident track record, aggressive and WP:TENDENTIOUS editor spending a large amount of time in this CTOP is doing more harm than good. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Now that I haven't posted on the Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025) page in a while, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1289746420 you found] @Smeagol 17 to call a POV-pusher and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kursk_offensive_(2024–2025)&diff=1289620363 imply] that they spread Russian propaganda. This is starting to look like a WP:1AM situation, where you're the only one with the neutral POV, and everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian propagandist and needs to be TBAN-ed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1289159878 You also accused] @SaintPaulOfTarsus (and others) of wanting to include information just because it is about Russians: {{tq|"The only reason this is being pushed is because the alleged victims were Russians"}}. Even @Mr rnddude [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1289775649 called you out on it]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support trout for aspersions at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine. I haven't followed the other pages' discussions; Idk if they're substantially worse or not, but if they are then read this comment with that in mind. I'm more concerned here with what I perceive as civility issues than with POV pushing in mainspace, having not seen—in my limited focus (for this discussion's purposes) on Russian invasion of Ukraine—much in the way of unconstructive mainspace edits. It's challenging to keep up civility as a frequent minority perspective, and at times other editors contribute to general incivility, too Placeholderer (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support indef – I'm fairly convinced that this user has shown clear battleground behaviour. Whether through violating [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1279975300&diffonly=1] WP:BRD (initiated by another user [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1279904641&diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1279984895&diffonly=1]), edit-warring over the inclusion of contentious material [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1271473207][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1271469140][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1271679650], then [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_21# bludgeoning], which is problematic, I don't like it removal [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1272203221&diffonly=1], which was thankfully reverted [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1272204308&diffonly=1], or citing [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_blackmail&diff=prev&oldid=1269783907&searchToken=aznfmubahgi883wg6jwl65l5c][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_blackmail&diff=prev&oldid=1269786077] unreliable sources [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Rbc.ru_and_rbc.ua][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Anadolu_Agency] like RBC-Ukraine and Anadolu Agency. Now that we know their canvassing charges based on spurious evidence were nothing but a hoax and a total waste of time for ArbCom, and now they're misinterpreting the judgment while issuing a fauxpology by totally doctoring it as {{tq|as ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless}}, it only makes things worse for their case. It's obvious that this user failed to WP:AGF, for which they were previously warned [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B/Archive1#Warning:_Assume_good_faith], and has serious I don't hear that / I don't think so issues. Doug had also previously warned them for this battleground behaviour [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurboSuperA%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1270036507], but unfortunately, in reply, Turbo said: {{tq|Stop threatening me. I have made 4 comments on the RFC, while Slatersteven has made 6.}} They have been found POV-pushing and inserting their WP:OR assertions (pinging {{U|MrOllie|Choucas0}}) on Vladimir Bukovsky. Given their previous accusations and aspersions toward other users, I'm inclined to support an indefinite block. The length of WP:ROPE has been shortened. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support, behaviour falls below par for a CT, I also find their recent report at AE a bit battleground, the user had just been given a tban, which are notoriously unintuitive, and violated it. Turbo could've at least left a message at the user's talk page to give them a chance to self revert/ping the blocking admin there to explain it, but instead it was escalated to AE to try to get them indeffed. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• The lack of not shuting the eff up about this, here at ani is leading me towards a TBAN, Turbo STFU and drop it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was pinged here by TurboSuperA+, regrettably as I tend to avoid visiting this page. Three charges are levied against TSA+ here: pov-pushing, ownership, and bludgeoning. I base my !vote primarily on direct experience as a major contributor to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine mentioned here.{{efn|I have participated there since the day the page was created and am a top-10 contributor both by number of edits and volume of bytes posted.}} {{pb}} I have seen nothing approaching ownership behaviour from TSA+ there and nothing here suggests that ownership behaviour is present at the other article either. Chicdat writes that {{tq|TurboSuperA+ commented over 30 times, reverting almost as many times on the main article}}. The former claim appears true, but the latter a fabrication. By my count, TSA+ has edited the article 19 times in the past 500 edits dating back to March 12th. These edits include four direct reverts and several other removals, but the majority of their edits appear uncontested. The next 500 edits date back to September 2024 and do not contain a single edit from TSA+. These are not indicative of ownership, pervasive edit-warring, or other conduct issues. Just routine editing with occasional disputes stemming from this being an active CTOP. {{pb}} TSA+ has a viewpoint on the conflict, and I suspect they would consider myself as having an opposing perspective; but the mere having of a POV, even fringe, does not constitute pov-pushing, which occurs when an editor tries to aggressively force their viewpoint into an article. Based on the mainspace edits, the evidence for this accusation must be on the talk page. TSA+ is a significant contributor to only one discussion there. They have bludgeoned that discussion – they appear frustrated by the perceived fixation on minutiae – but this is an isolated incident. On Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, I recall that TSA+ has occasionally overstepped bounds into bludgeon territory, as many other editors have as such discussions can become heated so a degree of leeway is necessary for disputes to be settled. Chicdat cites the ongoing RfC on the invasion talk page as an example of this issue. In the RfC, TSA+ has an extensive back and forth with predominantly Placeholderer but also a couple other editors under their own comment. This is not an example of bludgeoning.{{efn|Unless one can bludgeon their own comment!}} I only found two replies outside of their own OP sub-thread. Beyond that there is also the 'North Korean involvement' discussion and I'd say they should drop the stick, but they already have with an apparently satisfactory resolution having been achieved nearly a month ago. This may be less than ideal, but is hardly egregious. {{pb}} I agree with Placeholderer that TSA+ is at a general disadvantage because they hold a minority viewpoint.{{efn|Alongside a single other editor in the whole topic space that I can think of.}} It is best to avoid protracted debates with editors holding opposing views. Minority viewpoint holding editors – especially in CTOPs – are both at an inherent disadvantage. The majority of such editors eventually either quit editing the CTOP of their own volition because they rarely find any productive progress being made or find themselves removed. {{pb}} Summary: Insufficient, if any, evidence of ownership; minimal evidence of disruptive pov-pushing, especially in mainspace; adequate evidence of bludgeoning, but not worthy of immediate sanction on consideration of additional factors. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: There is quite a bit of discussion above about the number and percentage of edits involved. Rather that users going back and forth on the numbers, here are the numbers I have compiled as of 09:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC): First: Regarding the number of edits to Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, TurboSuperA+ has made 250 per [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=TurboSuperA%2B&page=Talk%3ARussian+invasion+of+Ukraine&max=300&server=enwiki the User Contribution Search tool (UCS)] for a percentage of about 12.33% overall. (250/2028) Second: Regarding the number of comments to the discussion called "RfC: Should the US and/or NATO be added to the infobox in light of new NYT article?" at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, TurboSuperA+'s signature shows up 21 times. The prior search using the UCS tool shows 24 edits when searching by edit summary, of which three edits indicate that they made two alterations to existing comments and one edit indicates it being moved to a different position. Third: Regarding the number of comments to the discussion currently called "Result parameter" at Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025), TurboSuperA+'s signature shows up 33 times. The UCS tool is not as effective here due to multiple threads being renamed. With manual adding: 5 edits were made to the first thread; 16 edits to the second thread; 8 edits to the third thread; 2 edits to the fourth thread; 1 edit to the fifth thread before renaming; and 8 edits to the fifth thread after renaming. Total counted edits is 40 with at least 6 edits appearing to be adjustments to existing comments. This seems to be nearly in line with the prior count of 33 signatures. Fourth: Regarding the number of edits made to Kursk offensive (2024–2025), [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=TurboSuperA%2B&page=Kursk+offensive+%282024%E2%80%932025%29&server=enwiki&max= The UCS tool reports 19 edits] of which 4 of the edits appear to be reverts of other edits. Hopefully this clears up any confusion on the numbers and can allow more discussion elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC) {{NAO}}
• Support placing TurboSuperA+ on Balanced Editing Restriction per @Simonm223 if the filter gets created 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per evidence presented by Mr rnddude. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The issues of the removal of sources and battleground mentality apparently persist, which Mr rnddude has overlooked. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::In this ANI I note, a case of not taking any notice? Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Battleground mentality should be taken in context. Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine has had persistent civility issues at a general scale, and incivility prompts incivility. I could pick out some quotes if that would help rather than taking my word for it Placeholderer (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support topic ban With the latest refusal to not STFU and make it about the same user (but with an "But I do appooigs" at the end) I think we will be back here sooner rather than latter, when they decide to fight their corner again. So it might be best if they edited in a less contentious area for now. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Stumbled across an attempt at off-wiki canvassing for this discussion[https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForUkraine/comments/1khsi7c/english_wikipedia_farleft_account_turbosupera/] Placeholderer (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Oh for the love of... See this is why I hate WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff. Can we please just close this off somehow before we're drowning in Redditors?
• :For the record I still think the appropriate course of action is either a logged warning or a balanced editing restriction. TurboSuperA+ is a new editor and I think they have some growing to do but I do think they are committed to a neutral encyclopedia and I would like them to have the chance to do that growing. Furthermore it's hard to judge them too harshly for a bit of paranoia when there really are threads on Reddit agitating against them personally. And, like, please can everybody just remember WP:AGF and WP:CIV going forward and stay the hell off Reddit for Wikipedia stuff? Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That Reddit OP seems to be a chronic canvasser. Their Reddit post history is full of Wikipedia Israel/Palestine posts. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::FWIW the post was 7 days ago, so the flood risk is probably passed Placeholderer (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I found this as well yesterday. That same Reddit user also [https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForUkraine/comments/1k7ri3s/english_wikipedia_some_raging_marxists_are/ posted] Talk:Azov Brigade during the RFC, and I also found [https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14081 this Wikipediocracy thread].
• :If this is the entirety of the secret evidence, it definitely falls into the category of "evidence of attempted canvassing; no evidence anyone responded, let alone evidence of who responded".
• :(For clarity, I found all these threads for the first time while searching yesterday; I was not involved in any of them, nor am I acquainted with any of the participants. I don't subscribe to that subreddit, neither do I use Wikipediocracy) Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't think these posts should be taken to accuse anyone of being canvassed. I don't really know what they should be taken for at all—just figured I should share Placeholderer (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Absolutely, I didn't think you were accusing anyone - just thought I should clarify (and add the other links I found). Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Yeah, I'm personally more worried that the longer this persists open the more likely it is that we will get over-eager Redditors muddying the waters of an already convoluted AN/I posting. Was not trying to imply even that any of these "fellas" had responded to the canvasing request as of yet. Frankly, from their comments about Israel / Palestine, and a quick perusal of their other sub-reddits it would not surprise me if the Redditor who originally posted the request wasn't someone long since blocked. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I know this is a comment often made against Wikipedia contributors to disparage them, but some people really need to get a life. If you want to make a relevant comment here, you can. Wikipedia is open and transparent. Posting on Reddit to complain about an editor's conduct here just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved. (not directed towards anyone in this thread, only to the Redditors) Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 17:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Another solution might be moving this to WP:AE, which would not be affected by any canvassing issues and at the same time, the issues regarding the user can be thoroughly scrutinized. Logichulk (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::This AN/I filing is a bit long in the tooth to refer to AE at this point IMO. We've got a lot of different opinions here. What's needed is for an admin to figure out what the consensus is. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{Comment}}. See [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine]. Yes, the user has 250 edits to that page. But he is only 13th in the "users by the number of edits" list. (One user has 1,316 edits!) And there are some names above him that may be familiar to you. One, two places above him, was just recently discussed here for "potential Holocaust revisionism". Quoting {{u|Mr rnddude}}, {{tq|I agree with Placeholderer that TSA+ is at a general disadvantage because they hold a minority viewpoint.}} --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"And there are some names above him that may be familiar to you. One, two places above him, was just recently discussed here for 'potential Holocaust revisionism'."}}

::Sorry, I don't see how that's relevant here. That editor was also topic-banned and isn't involved in this discussion. Every editor's conduct should be assessed on its own merits. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 04:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::I got an answer to these questions at WP:UBER. See here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Using_the_balanced_editing_restriction#Using_this_outside_of_Israel_/_Palestine]

:::In short a new edit filter would probably need to be created. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks so much for following up. It looks like this is probably theoretically feasible, but would take a long time and a fair bit of technical effort to implement. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's definitely technically feasible. I cannot speak to the level of effort required. I'll be honest. I haven't done any work with edit filters on WP and do not know how much effort is involved ins setting them up. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• Please no, using extremely complicated restrictions such as this creates more burden for the project - as opposed to finding a way to make less burden for the project in response to disruption. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm with {{Noping|Xaosflux}}. The restriction is very convoluted. I'd request uninvolved admins to consider closing this proposal, as this remedy is unlikely to stop their disruption instead it would pile-up more sets of work for volunteer editors. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::You have never posted on ANI before, how did you find this thread? Why is it so important for you that I get TBAN-ed? The only thread we have both posted in was the Kshatriya RFC. You don't even edit in the RUSUKR topic area. I think you're trying to get revenge because I had a different opinion regarding whether Kshatriyas have Rajput status (they don't). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::TurboSuperA+, ANI is a high traffic noticeboard and is open to any editor to contribute to discussions. Srimant ROSHAN has actually previously commented at ANI {{diff2|1286732723|on 21 April 2025}}. Your comment appears to me to be a case of casting aspersions. I would strongly encourage you to drop this battleground behaviour yourself. I have not !voted or commented on any of the sanction proposals as I do not feel adequately informed to say whether they are justified one way or the other, but if you keep it up with belligerent behaviour like this a community sanction is likely to be the only option. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I just find it odd that an editor with whom I've never interacted before seems to be so invested in getting me TBAN'd from a topic area where they don't edit. That's all. Others I can understand, I've had several disagreements with them in the past. Yes, they've made a single edit on ANI previously, and then made 4 comments in this thread. Why this thread and not any of the dozen other ones? I think that's a legitimate question. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As you have mentioned, you have previously interacted with this editor. The noticeboards are centralised discussion spaces where any editor with a relevant opinion can comment on a matter under discussion. It may be that they have only seen two discussions here to which they feel they can add something. I noticed they have also contributed to discussions at other centralised noticeboards such as WP:ARE and WP:AfD. There are many ways they could have come across this thread, e.g. through watching this page or having seen the ANI notice at your talk page. Additionally, all Wikimedia contributors are volunteers and are free to contribute as and where they see fit. My own contributions to ANI are spotty at best - I don't have a lot of free time and so prefer to focus on article space, Commons and Wikidata, although often find myself going down rabbit holes. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 14:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You're again failing to WP:Assume good faith. I have nothing personal against you, so please don't get me wrong. Voluntarily participating in an ANI thread is never prohibited. You've never participated in any RfC where I have, nor have we even intersected before. So it's up to you to explain how I'm on a revenge campaign. I'm in favor of an indef, not a T-ban -- both are different. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sadly, I can't help but notice that "how did you find this ANI thread?" is just a continuation of "how did you find this RFC??", which is how we got here. I understand that being discussed at ANI can be very stressful, but I really think TurboSuperA+ might want to take a step back and avoid digging the hole even deeper. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 04:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|1=You've never participated in any RfC where I have}}{{pb}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kshatriya&diff=1287193029 You !voted] on an RFC that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kshatriya&diff=prev&oldid=1277565411 closed].{{pb}}
4_template� I'm just wondering why out of 30+ topics at ANI right now, you chose to post in this one. You also didn't post once, but you posted 5 times. Including responding to those who disagree with a TBAN. I'm just wondering why is it so important to you that I get indeffed, especially when we have never {{tq|"even intersected before"}}?{{pb}}You also went months back into my edit history, only to misrepresent what had happened. For example, you wrote: {{tq|"They have been found POV-pushing and inserting their WP:OR assertions (pinging Choucas0) on Vladimir Bukovsky."}} when the opposite is true. I was arguing against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the only POV I was "pushing" was that of WP:RS (including the police, the courts, the experts). Also, I was not "found" to be doing anything, you simply invented that out of thin air.{{pb}}So forgive me if I don't immediately believe that you are just a concerned editor who just happened to come across the thread. Forgive me for thinking you might be an editor with a grudge who went through my whole editing history, just throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.{{pb}}I apologise for my wrong and disruptive thoughts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Turbo, this is WP:ASPERSIONS. You don't want to be here. I don't want you to be here. You want to edit without drawing attention. I want you to edit without drawing attention. Stop digging the hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Addendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{userlinks|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)

: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|status=Boomerban|1=By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, Ndeavour is banned from English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ctop|Collapse an apparently LLM-generated complaint with random links. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Subject: Disruptive Conduct by User:Polygnotus on Talk:Landmark Worldwide

User involved: User:Polygnotus

Page involved: Talk:Landmark Worldwide

Summary:

I am reporting a pattern of uncivil, disruptive, and battleground-style behavior by User:Polygnotus over the course of several months on the Talk:Landmark Worldwide page. While Polygnotus frequently references policy (e.g. WP:NPOV), their conduct includes repeated personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, refusal to constructively engage in collaboration, and hostile commentary directed at multiple editors. Their behavior is making it difficult to achieve consensus and is driving away participation from other editors.

Examples of concerning behavior:

Incivility and Personal Attacks:

Refers to other editors as “cultmembers” and “Landmarkians”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212911203#RfC_-_Undue_weight_given_to_%27Cult_accusations%27?

Accuses other editors of “sockpuppetry” and “meatpuppetry” without evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212915523

Refusal to Collaborate:

Dismisses a good-faith rewrite effort with: “That is clearly not an improvement…”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1213913940

Rejects article draft discussion with: “Just a waste of time.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214510892

Battleground Mentality:

Frames debate as “Wikipedians vs. Landmarkians”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214042289

Says: “We can bicker about this for 48 years...”

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212918161

Stonewalling and Gaslighting:

Refuses to answer direct questions and accuses others of harassment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214511075

Evades multiple requests to disclose their own point of view while continually implying others are acting in bad faith:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214563401

Request:

I request that administrators review this behavior for violations of:

WP:CIV

WP:NPA

WP:AGF

WP:BATTLEGROUND

Please consider a formal warning, a behavioral topic ban from Landmark-related content, or other appropriate remedial action. The behavior described is disruptive to the collaborative editing process and has persisted despite multiple good-faith efforts by other editors to de-escalate.

Thank you.

CoyEdit

Ndeavour (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cbot}}

:pgsql? CoyEdit? Polygnotus (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

: Noting that I've renamed this section from {{tq|q=y|pgsql CopyEdit Disruptive behavior and incivility by User:Polygnotus on Landmark Worldwide talk page] Page involved: Talk:Landmark Worldwide Summary: I am reporting a pattern of uncivil, disruptive, and battleground-style behavior by User:Polygnotus over the course of several months on the Talk:Landmark Worldwide page. While Polygnotus frequently references policy (e.g. WP:NPOV), their conduct includes repeated personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, refusal to constructively}} to simply User:Polygnotus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is this an export from a PostgreSQL database??? *confused stare* Polygnotus (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Pardon my mistakes - I've made more than a few. Thank you for renaming the section. I do trust your abilities there. I don't have a postgreSQL database on anyone - (I ran from any work that used to call for SQL when I was still working) and when I re-examine my working documents for all of this I really can't figure out how that was included. However, by "collapsing" the work I did, you have effectively eliminated all the references that point to examples supporting my entry. Please restore the content you removed so others can be the judge of your behavior. Ndeavour (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Ndeavour I am sorry, but {{tq|I really can't figure out how that was included.}} is not good enough.

:::Can you please explain why you have information about me in a PostgreSQL database, or what happened that caused "pgsql" and "Copy" and "Edit" to be included? Polygnotus (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:They notified me... on meta? :meta:User_talk:Polygnotus. Polygnotus (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, unfortunetely I stumbled through my limited understanding of all the intricacies of Wikipedia. It's a major reason why I don't take on editing. I was attempting to be courteous and apparently messed up. Ndeavour (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Ndeavour Ok, but if your understanding of Wikipedia is that limited, is there perhaps a chance that you are simply wrong about all this? Polygnotus (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:None of the diffs work. The oldid numbers go to completely unrelated articles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Schazjmd That is the least surprising thing about this filing. ;-) Polygnotus (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Ndeavour, you need to provide valid diffs for your complaint. It might help to use preview before posting.

:This is giving me 'dyslexia headache' and I need a dark room. Knitsey (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::It may be hard to defend myself when I have no clue which edits they are referring to. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. I will do my best to figure out how come the ones I thought I was using didn't work and repost when I can be sure they do. Ndeavour (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

----

Oh man I apologize in advance because this is gonna be real boring for whoever dares look into this.

It will take a couple of days to provide a short summary of what happened.

I'll copy a quick tl;dr here:

Landmark is a [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/inside-the-landmark-forum_b_90028 weird "selfhelp" group] started by a guru called John Paul Rosenberg who now uses the name Werner Erhard. Nowadays they are mostly focused on making money but back in the day it was pretty cultish. Various RS and "not-so-R" S-es reported on that and negative information made its way into the Wikipedia article. A group consisting of a handful of meatpuppets and a dozen or two sockpuppets have been WP:GAMING the system by WP:CPUSHing and WP:TAGTEAMing for over 2 decades. A bunch of the socks got blocked but not all of them. There was an ARBCOM case back in the day but that didn't solve the problem.

Landmark has been called "Scientology-lite" and they use the same "Attack the Attacker" policy.

https://culteducation.com/group/1020-landmark-education/12303-landmark-education.html

The meat- and sockpuppets have been manipulating Wikipedia for more than 2 decades. They believe that they do not have to follow WP:COI when they refuse to admit that they have a conflict of interest. And, I gotta admit, they were pretty successful.

The Landmark members often CPUSH and sealion and editwar and waste everyone's time because they cannot accept the fact that reliable sources have mentioned negative information about Landmark.

I randomly found the article, skimmed it and posted on NPOVN that it was a weird cult and that someone should take a look at the article, hoping to pawn it off to someone else. I immediately got attacked for it, and as a result I went deeper and deeper through the archives.

An editor who goes by {{user|Avatar317}} has at some point worked on the article. A thankless job if there ever was one. The Landmarkians have been attacking Avatar317 and their work nonstop for ages.

Ndeavour recently tried to canvass [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ndeavour?limit=7&offset=20250414152253001 7 admins] to their cause, but they got threatened with a block if they continued and the admins didn't follow Ndeavour's instructions so now they are here.

(to be continued, part 1 of 474).

Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|1=real boring}}? This is the type of stuff I'd usually watch a youtube video essay about. Finish writing it please 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::I recommend checking out the work of {{user|PARAKANYAA}} who is an expert in this field and has written about various cults on Wikipedia, for example Order of the Solar Temple. Polygnotus (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• I have collapsed the original complaint which provided random diffs (eg: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1212911203#RfC_-_Undue_weight_given_to_%27Cult_accusations%27?], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landmark_Worldwide&oldid=1214511075]) as evidence. That said, I am not sure that {{u| Polygnotus}} participation in this area has been problem-free either. For example this "warroom" subpage they created, treating wikipedia as a forum, which perhaps needs to be MFDed. Abecedare (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Abecedare Well that was probably one of the kindest things I have done on Wikipedia. Unfortunately they didn't choose that path. Polygnotus (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus has been very helpful in keeping this article on track for neutrality, as well as contributions to other articles I've seen them on.

Ndeavour is clearly here for one reason, and that is to remove the anything not positive about Landmark. After Ndeavour's request, Megalibrarygirl came to the article and made some improvements by summarizing and adding hard-to-find sources, but I doubt those additions were what Ndeavour was hoping for, since they talked about Landmark's cultish reputation.

One author reporting on Landmark forum said: "One thing is certain: Landmark is a program that is incredibly successful at making people feel good about Landmark."[https://web.archive.org/web/20190724095838/https://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/landmark-worldwide-the-arts-community-and-the-big-bizarre-business-of-personal-development/content/?oid=20065897] - So this might explain where their participants' fervor to "fix" this article comes from.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:It may be a combination of that and them realising they aren't under a CTOP designation any longer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Since this is obviously going nowhere I asked Abecedare and we agreed that I can pause typing. If any user who is not a (former) customer of Landmark wants information, especially admins, you know where to find me. Oh, it probably goes without saying, but Ndeavour misrepresents what I wrote and in what context. Love, Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Ndevour is a single purpose account with a COI. They should be restricted to edit requests on this article's talk page. As an employee, tracking wiki editors in a postgres database and then creating spurious conduct reports is not appropriate.

• Support a limit to edit requests for any topics dealing with this company, it's employees, or it's classes. 107.116.165.71 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support boomerang; but what to support? A t-ban, fine. But if they are, as the anon^^^ says, particularly interested in "tracking wiki editors in a postgres database and then creating spurious conduct reports", then obviously a site-ban for harasment, trolling and somethiing akin to outing. In any case, their editing shows them to be a SPA with possible CIR issues; I don't think Polygnotus can be blamed for taking this on over a year ago and sticking with it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support User has been here for some time but made no attempt to learn about content dispute resolution, as shown by their choice to post on the Talk pages of random admins asking them to look at the organization's article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just because the account has existed for 1.5 years doesn't mean it's experienced. Ndeavour has {{Usercontribs|Ndeavour|79 edits}} to their name. I agree a course-correction is necessary, but would support a T-Ban only from Landmark, broadly. I would oppose site-ban as being very WP:BITEy when a T-ban could prevent disruption just as effectively. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support site-ban per Fortuna 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support site ban: Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Tracking Wikipedia editors in this manner is unacceptable; I will send an email to T&S later unless someone beats me to it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban - per above editors, and also that the Scientologists used similar tactics years back and caused lots of disruption site-wide and wasted large amounts of the community's time in their attempts to silence criticism. Some of Landmark's and EST's ideas were taken by Erhard from the Scientologists, so (fans of Landmark)'s continued similar tactics and persistence doesn't surprise me.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Two things: the first is that I recognize that my background as a former employee and partcipant could be seen as COI - and I have never edited anything in the article and confined myself to the discussions on the talk page. Second, I attempted to use ChatGPT - poorly, I admit - to assemble the items I wanted to have attention on. Please look at my interactions with Polygnotus on the talk page, and show me where I have violated policy or engaged in personal attacks or denigration . Particularly look at the discussions in the War Room section on the Landmark Worldwide Talk page where he intimated he wanted to work collaboratively.. Ndeavour (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Ndeavour That is no longer important right now. Please forward the email. Polygnotus (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban - LMW included a discretionary sanctions regime. If this continues, I doubt the Arbitrators would disagree too heavily with reinstating it, either at WP:ARCA or via a new case. They've done it before. As to the editor's behaviour, nothing here warrants less than a full-fledged siteban; the comparisons to SCI are very apt. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Fortuna. I understand ER's suggested T-ban, but the apparent use of a PostgreSQL database to attack an editor is grotesque. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Utterly unacceptable behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support site ban While I do believe their claim that they are not the puppetmaster, they were willing to be the puppet. This kind of behaviour is incompatible with being a Wikipedian. Polygnotus (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

They just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ndeavour&diff=prev&oldid=1290235874 posted]: {{Tq|Someone more familar than I with how to post ANI sent me a file. I blindly trusted the instructions and inadvertantly included the tags you point to. Again, I don't maintain any databases and I don't access any databases}}. I have asked them to forward the email to me. If you do a bit of digging in the archives it is pretty easy to see that there are 2 Landmarkians with the technical skill and dedication to set up a database to stalk their perceived enemies, and control the socks. And it would be very out of character for one of them. I request that Ndevour will be allowed to use their talkpage because I hope they will confirm my suspicion who is behind all this. Polygnotus (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:What purpose would be served by 'confirming your suspicion'? We aren't going to sanction anyone else on that basis: we'd need verifiable evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Nobody's suggesting removing talk page access anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I wasn't sure if a site ban included the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Technically, the talk page of a blocked (banned) user is only to be used for appealing the block/ban, but since this is directly relevant to the (incoming) block/ban, it's acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::That said, this smells to me of the Little Brother Defense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The claim that they are a meatpuppet is very plausible. They have stated that "someone" sent them a file containing what to post on ANI, and that they had a phonecall with that person when it backfired. I am pretty confident that both those claims are true. It is not hard to figure out who that "someone" is, but it would be nice if they could confirm it because it might make it easier to get that person sanctioned in the future. They are no computer wizard and the PostgreSQL thing they accidentally copied was from the email sent by that "someone". For years there has been a tagteaming group of accounts who are dormant for months and suddenly become active to support eachother. So it seems very likely that that same "someone" coordinates that. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If we're getting into the world of off-project communications here, then this should not be pursued further on ANI (WP:PRIVACY, WP:POSTEMAIL, WP:DWH), and you'd best raise the issue with ArbCom. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::They made those claims onwiki and then unfortunately refused to share the email. But yeah I think that if this kinda stuff continues after Ndeavour is blocked the first step will be getting this designated as a Contentious Topic (maybe New Religious Movements as a whole) and then if it still continues I will open another Arbcom case. Because this is ridiculous. Polygnotus (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, I don't know the situation well enough to know if an ArbCom case is advisable, but you can always reach out to ArbCom privately. And in fact, you'll have to, if you wish to explore the content of that email and whoever sent it. Because the source email address is PII, and even the content of the email should not be explored publicly, under the relevant policies. I know that might seem unfair in the circumstances, but the situation is what it is, unfortunately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Snow Rise Ndeavour claimed, onwiki, that an unnamed third party sent them an email, and told them to post the contents on ANI. They refused to name that person or share the email. So the only information I have is onwiki.

:::::::I wish I could {{tq|explore the content of that email and whoever sent it}} but I cannot. Polygnotus (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If you are going to talk about me and what I've said or done, please be accurate and complete. I said that I received an email about how to raise an ANI - not what to say. Ndeavour (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::But the contents of what you posted to start this ANI (the inclusion of extra database administration commands from a copy-paste) show the opposite of what you are claiming here. If the email did NOT give you text for this ANI, where did you get that text? And why did parts of the email get included in the ANI initiation? ---Avatar317^(talk) 18:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::And this is why I (even more so now) suspect WP:BROTHER is at play here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@The Bushranger It certainly is one of the weakest defences I've seen on ANI. Polygnotus (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{ping|Drmies|Cullen328}} Any admin in the house willing to deal with this stuff? Polygnotus (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This clinches it for me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ndeavour&diff=prev&oldid=1290404552 "I obviously don't know much about Wikipedia"]. Well, then don't be causing drama. The weirdness abounds here. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Drmies I've had some weird conversations on Wikipedia, but this was the weirdest one by far. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Commenting since I was pinged. As a Northern Californian who has been reading about John Paul Rosenberg AKA Werner Erhard and his crowd for over half a century, I am pleased that {{u|Drmies}} took care of this while I was asleep. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Cullen328 Can I invite you over to the relevant articles? They are a giant mess, and it would be good to have someone edit the articles who is not a follower of Erhard. I got plenty of sources I can share but unfortunately I am not a writer. Polygnotus (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{u|Polygnotus}}, let's discuss that on my talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{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}}

{{Userlinks|Kolno}} Previous case at ANI where people raised concerns about WP:PROFRINGE. He wrote Francisco Barreto's expedition to Monomotapa almost entirely based on [https://archive.org/details/southafric00colv/mode/2up Duncan 1909]. I implore people to read African historiography#Colonial historiography and then read the article, it's pretty obvious. When I raised this at the talk page, he replied saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francisco_Barreto%27s_expedition_to_Monomotapa&diff=prev&oldid=1290077723 while Duncan clearly shows the biases of his time, that alone doesn't make it unreliable. He was a journalist and historian, and his views are no reason to entirely dismiss or remove content from the article.] The article previously included a racist slur, Kaffir (racial term), but Kolno removed this after I raised it. I found loads of recent sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francisco_Barreto%27s_expedition_to_Monomotapa&diff=prev&oldid=1290097890]. Furthermore, the article says it was a "Portuguese victory" when sources I've seen called it a failed expedition, even Duncan doesn't seem to portray it as a victory, further evidence of PROFRINGE. He's written other articles on African history based on colonial sources, such as Portuguese expedition to Rio Grande (1447) (1841 and 1940), Portuguese expedition to Senegal (1487) (1940), English expedition to the Gambia River (1618) (1899, 1940, and 1938), Battle of Fancá (1938), Blockade of Zanzibar (1889), and Portuguese conquest of the East African coast (1894, 1900, 1936, 1881, 1752 and 1906). Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I did raise this at their talk page as well prior to their response where I cited WP:AGEMATTERS and asked them to go through their articles and replace old sources with recent sources, but they seem to have ignored that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kolno&diff=prev&oldid=1290062020] Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::The objectionable behavior seems to date from before the January ANI discussion. And they haven't removed the POV tag you added from the article. Additionally, they originally wrote that it was an "inconclusive" battle, not a victory. They then changed it to "tactical victory", but the implication of "tactical victory" is usually that something is a strategic defeat. It was @Javext who removed "tactical." Jahaza (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The objectionable behaviour is defending the use of racist colonial sources, notorious for their spin and obv unreliable. Most of these articles were created after the January ANI case. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Of the articles you've named, only two of seven were created since January. Jahaza (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You’re right, my bad, they just happened to be in the lot I spot checked for dates. I hope that this derives from a lack of understanding rather than POV issues, I’ve started an essay on this, but would like to hear their response first though Kowal2701 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kolno, how do you explain your determination of a Portuguese victory in the infobox? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::They didn't write that... see my note above. Jahaza (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That’s fine; how was it determined to be a tactical victory? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Tactically, the Portuguese won, they defeated the Mongas in battle and gained control of major coastal settlements. Strategically, not so much, they did reach the gold mines, but they found no gold and eventually had to retreat. If you'd prefer to discuss adjusting the result to something else, such as reverting to inconclusive or even omitting it, I'm open to that. Kolno (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:This all seems to be cherry-picked, looking through every article to find one that might include a single colonial source and bringing it here to raise a point. The user seems to dismiss the notability by assuming that every colonial-era source portrays colonizers as superior to native Africans (which, in some cases, might be true). But taking a look at just a few examples, such as Harry Johnston, 1899, he explicitly states: "Thompson, however, lost his head, became fantastic in his notions, and is supposed to have been killed by the natives" (p. 194). There’s no racism there, just a fact I decided to use in the English expedition to the Gambia River (1618) article.

:As mentioned before, some articles only use one colonial source, such as Blockade of Zanzibar, and the specific part I used had nothing to do with Africans themselves, but was cited in a different context.

:Regarding the result listed in the article, that's a separate topic, and I think it can be discussed on the talk page, as it's not the main issue being raised here. Kolno (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Additionally, the user did provide a few sources and suggested improvements for the Francisco Barreto's expedition to Monomotapa article, but if he already took the time to find those sources, why not simply read them and help improve the article directly? He seems to believe that, as the article's creator, the responsibility falls entirely on me to read other books and revise it, when he is just as capable of contributing. This feels more like pressure than collaboration, especially when the choice given is either to make the changes myself or see all colonial-era sources, and their associated content, removed from the article. Kolno (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That’s very disingenuous to not address the articles that are based almost entirely on colonial sources. You used colonial sources when recent ones were available and are now defending it, that’s either a WP:CIR issue or very serious POV issues. Please read this, does that make sense? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, your article makes sense, and I agree with many of the concerns raised. But does that mean colonial-era sources are completely unusable? Not necessarily. Even you acknowledge that, in some cases, they can be used with care.

::::In this case, the racist language was removed, and you found alternative sources, which is great. But you still haven't addressed what I see as pressure: if you already have access to those sources and believe they improve the article, then why not take the initiative to add them yourself? Kolno (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Pretty much any sources from 19th century to 1940 are completely unusable, although it depends on the author and the extract being cited. The issue is that you weren’t using them with care, reading through some of the articles I can easily tell they’ve been written with colonial sources. The reason I escalated to ANI was to try to prevent you from writing articles on these sources in the future. I have so much other stuff to do on here and don’t have much time to clean-up, the onus should be on you to rectify this, but I can certainly help finding sources and doing a bit of writing. I don’t know if you’re aware, but you can use Google Scholar to find sources, that’s how I found those ones. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think you're going to get consensus for never using any sources before 1940. Assuming the articles are written with awareness of the bias in the sources (admittedly possibly not something we can always assume here), it is possible to write articles based on easily available public domain sources that are sometimes better than having no article on a topic at all and which can be improved over time through the Wikipedia process. Given that the users articles are all being screened by the requests for article creation process, maybe some kind of message about sourcing on their project pages might work better than a notice here. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Idk, it's just very time intensive to analyse each source in depth and have long-winded discussions at every turn when in practice they're most often not usable. We need some guideline on this as I see it far too often (practically all our articles on British colonies in Africa were written with pre-1970s sources). I might be better off starting an open-ended discussion at WP:RSN or WP:FTN, idk. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Kowal2701}}, there is a current RSN discussion on using classical primary sources here, which might give you ideas on how to proceed (and/or how not to proceed). TSventon (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you, I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Colonial sources Kowal2701 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I should have discussed this more with you before considering ANI, but tbh I was just outraged to see how many articles you’d written used these sources. It’s clear you’re trying to improve the encyclopedia Kowal2701 (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

:* 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• {{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}}

{{atop

| status = Continue on article talk page

| result = There are two ongoing discussions on Talk:Christ myth theory discussing this content dispute. OP is currently participating in both. Opening up a third discussion, in ANI no less, is forum shopping and counterproductive. Please continue this discussion where it should be continued, on the article talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

I deleted a few non-academic sources, published by Harper Collins, and some from a publisher in Kentucky, which is not an academic one.

The user, Joshua Jonathan, is not interesting in a discussion and claims that blog posts are an adequate source. The user claim that even non-academic writings from a certain author is allowed while i claim academic sources should be favoured.

Talk:Christ myth theory#Ehrman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.99.101.165 (talk • contribs)

:That is a content dispute, while this noticeboard is for immediate behavioural problems. Try WP:3O, WP:RSN, WP:NPOV, or another dispute resolution method. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. I would say there are some problematic behaviour too. There are a couple of editors that are heavily biased and I was accused of harassment which is very serious, simply because I asked for other sources, except for blog posts. Editors keep protecting the article and reject all discussion.

:Please look into what the user Remsense wrote on my page, despite that I didn't do anything to warrant being accused of harassment.

:I was also told that I would get blocked by the user User:Joshua Jonathan if I didn't stop discussing and deleting non-academic sources, like blog posts etc. Someone needs to look into these users and their behaviour on the page:

:Christ myth theory

:User talk:58.99.101.165#I don't judge; articles have talk pages

:User:Remsense 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::This was also brought up over at Wikipedia:Third opinion, but it was so badly done that it broke the section and I have reverted back to the LGV. For transparency, I have worked with Remsense in the past, but I am entirely uninvolved in this particular matter. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you please reinstate the question then in the correct format? That would be a helpful thing to do instead of deleting it altogether, because input is needed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::FWIW, TurboSuperA+ quite clearly said {{xt| WP:3O, WP:RSN, WP:NPOV, or another dispute resolution method}}. Not and. The forum shopping and multi-target hounding is obvious and would've stopped already if OP was operating in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 09:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am acting in good faith. I just want the issues about unreliable soruces to be solved and discussed. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Unfortunately, "solved" in your estimation seems to be equivalent to you getting exactly what you want on the page, and we don't have to indulge your error there. The page was locked to prevent you from editing it, and you've since spread out to every other vector possible to make a fuss about it. You're not being subtle. Remsense ‥ 论 09:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Non academic sources like blog posts should be avoided. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I heard you say that already. You're not entitled to raise hell until you get your way, and I'm not going to pretend it's an acceptable rhetorical strategy on here. Remsense ‥ 论 09:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::When I put the issue in

:::Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Christ myth theory discussion

:::Remsense deletes it. The question should be allowed to be asked and not deleted without discussion. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::We aren't obliged to indulge your current manic outburst with equal energy. Remsense ‥ 论 09:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is an unwarranted personal attack. I'm only interested in discussing the use of sources. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Since this seems to be a dispute about whether a source or sources are acceptable, I think your best bet is WP:RSN. You should withdraw this report/thread and make another attempt to resolve the dispute. Just some friendly advice. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Absolutely, I'm a new user and not very familiar with everything so thank you very much for your advice. I will bring it up there but I created a new topic here in regards to the responses I have been getting from Remsense. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So how can the problems with Ramsense be solved? Since the user continues with personal attacks? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Close this thread with the status "withdrawn" and step back. The longer this goes on, your chance of getting what you want decreases, while the chance of you getting blocked increases. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

58.99.101.165, here's how I see it. You have repeatedly shouted "Books and blogs are not reliable sources" without giving us any further context. You haven't expanded on what the specific issue is with the specific source regarding the specific claim in the article, but just go back to repeating the same tropes again and again. It's hardly surprising that everyone else has got fed up and doesn't want to discuss the issue with you, as it's obviously a waste of their time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Personal attacks and false accusations are not acceptable either way but I'll be happy to bring up concrete examples. For example the book

:Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog II.

:Is is published by Westminster John Knox Press, which is not an academical press, still the wiki article frame it as this:

:"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in 1st-century-AD Roman Judea"

:Christ myth theory

:Christ myth theory#CITEREFHerzog2005

:But this book is not widely accepted in mainstream scholarship so the claim is not true. Academic texts and peer reviews should be found instead of this source. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::You clearly will not accept any discussion other than immediately making the changes you want. You haven't indicated otherwise for even a moment, so insisting you just want "discussion" is blatantly insincere. Stop wasting our time. Remsense ‥ 论 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I want to have a discussion and I am very open for it, but I think you wouldn't be willing to engage in one for reasons unknown to me. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I've already engaged with you in this one in the interim, in fact. Let's both prove each other wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 13:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::"{{xt|But this book is not widely accepted in mainstream scholarship so the claim is not true}}" In about 15 seconds, I found [https://andovernewton.yale.edu/news/remembering-former-dean-faculty-william-bill-herzog-ii this obituary] of William Herzog II, who is verified as being a Professor of the New Testament at Yale University. That sounds like a pretty authoritative source, so I completely disagree that citing that book is unacceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But not everything an academic writes is authoritative. There are many academics and this one is not authoritative. If you would care to read, the reference is to page 1-6 and nowhere does he claim what is stated in the wiki article. Please read the source properly. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You've gotten replies on the relevant pages. Argue content there and not here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"{{xt|There are many academics and this one is not authoritative.}}" That's your personal opinion; others may have a different view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is very biased. Why not use Brittanica? It doesn't hurt to introduce more sources. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::The fundamental problem is that you want to make up your own rules for content. Admissibility and weight are different concepts. There's no rule that only things from an academic press must be considered. Nor are blogs even categorically denied as sources. I disagree with Carrier's stance on the issue, and he's out of the mainstream, but we don't only discuss the mainstream consensus on an issue. And yes, blogs are explicitly allowed as sources when "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

::If you want to argue that Carrier, a PhD in the relevant field from Columbia, who has been published and reference extensively, is not a reliable source, fine, but you have to actually argue it and build consensus. Ranting about blogs is not it. Edit-warring to remove him as a source is not it. Flodding every noticeboard until someone lets you have your way is not it. A big part of Wikipedia, and, in fact, a big part of being a functioning adult human, is realizing that there will be many times that you do not get your way and that the process under which you didn't get your way was 100% fair. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, they are oposing Bart Ehrman, a reputable expert on the topic... But your response is spot-on. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have never disputed that there are historical sources, which there are. But the referencing and uses of sources is still incorrect. Why not use material from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-Jewish-religion-in-the-1st-century#ref22

::::Encyclopedia Britannica

::::It is a balanced source, is it not? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, because we generally avoid citing other tertiary sources for content, which you would know if you actually read WP:RS, which you've been linked several times. It is generally frustrating to us that you have all these preconceptions about what a reliable source must be. Please engage with what they actually are, according to our actual site policy. Remsense ‥ 论 14:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What you're saying is not true.

::::::Wikipedia, the link you sent says:

::::::"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

::::::Reputable

::::::tertiary sources

::::::, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."

::::::58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There's your answer, because we mainly cite secondary sources, and there's no reason to treat Britannica as more reliable than Ehrman because you have some unexplained hang-up. Remsense ‥ 论 14:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is no reason to treat it less than Ehrman or not mentioning it either. Encyclopedias are allowed to be cited, there's no rules against it at all. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No, it's often superfluous. Tertiary sources are just that—they themselves merely synthesize secondary sources, and often their authors are unknown. Concretely. Britannica isn't the golden standard you seemingly decided it is—it's gotten increasingly lax in editorial standards since around the 1960s, and on topics where no authors are named I'd often trust it about as much as the back of a cereal box. Indeed, the only major contributor to this EB article in the past two decades according to its revision history is "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica". The point many have tried to articulate to you is you have very particular and frankly arbitrary characterizations of sources, so maybe listen to what others tell you before you tell them they're wrong in the same formula repeatedly. And again, transfer this content discussion where it belongs, thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 14:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::This is exaggerated:

::::::::::"trust it about as much as the back of a cereal box".

::::::::::It is written by experts. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There should be a neutral point of view and sources should be referenced properly. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Stop making facile remarks like this when you don't even know what the corresponding policies say. It's acutely frustrating. Remsense ‥ 论 14:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Which policy?

:::::This is what wikipedia says:

:::::"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

:::::Reputable

:::::tertiary sources

:::::, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."

:::::Wikipedia:Reliable sources 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Another issue:

:::::: In the book Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 1-6 I cannot find the claims that are made in this wiki article. Can anyone?

:::::: This is from the wiki article:

:::::: "The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus,"

:::::: Can someone find it in the referenced pages?

:::::: It should be referenced correctly or removed.

:::::58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Argue content there and not here. Remsense ‥ 论 14:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Great so you're willing to be active on the talk page of the Christ myth theory? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|result=Continuation of Christ myth theory, use of blog posts and non-academic sources above, doesn't need another section. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

User:Remsense

The user has accused me of harassment for wanting a discussion about sources. (I argue for academic, the user for non-academic ones). Please see history to confirm.

User talk:58.99.101.165#I don't judge; articles have talk pages

I got a warning on my page for attempting to discuss sources.

The user also keeps deleting my attempts to have a discussion about the use of sources.

The user also uses personal attack such as:

"We aren't obliged to indulge your current manic outburst with equal energy." Which is on this page. Instead of discussing the matter at hand. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Starting another ANI thread about the goings-on in the ANI thread you started an hour ago is what a manic outburst doesn't look like, folks. Remsense ‥ 论 09:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ab}}

{{atop

| status = IP blocked 31 hours

| result = Pushing a futile dispute despite many warnings and attempts to counsel them and using AN/I inappropriately. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

ActivelyDisinterested closed down a thread in reliable sources discussion.

This motivation:

"Self published sources by subject matter experts can be used as reliable sources per policy, see WP:SPS. Closing this as it's just going round in circles with OP unable to accept what they are being told. -- LCU"

The question revolves about the use of a blog post to make historical academic claims.

It is not fair to shut down a discussion like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Block the IP They're being disruptive and have effectively sworn at their user talk to continue doing so. Let's just block the IP and be done with it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:For reference see:
WP:ANI#Christ myth theory, use of blog posts and non-academic sources
WP:ANI#Personal attacks
WP:DRN#Chirst myth theory
WP:RSN#Prophet and Teacher by William R. Herzog
(probably many more)
and WP:RSN#Larry Hurtado wordpress site which I closed due to the OPs WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
I'm happy for uninvolved editors to look into whether I was right to close the thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|status=Take four (please)|1=More blocks and page protections handed out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

After pulling a block for disruptive editing yesterday, several new IPs have emerged to sing in unison the same message as the blocked IP. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:B042:4005:525B:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/110.77.200.120] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.46.147.190] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:AA1:1040:582C:9559:A103:5A92:D692]

It looks like somebody is having fun with their VPN. Considering the broad range of IPs involved I'm not really sure what, if anything, can be done about this but I thought it bore mentioning as it appears that disruption will likely continue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:We can use filter to block these type of messages. That's the only solution I can see now. The ip can't understand something (or doesn't want to) and maybe their activities will continue. Using filter is the right idea here. Mehedi Abedin 12:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::But also we need to protect the pages the ip is involved in. Mehedi Abedin 12:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was going to start a new section for this, but the sock IPs have already been blocked and the original IPs block extended. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

And likely another https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_myth_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1290550281. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked. I'll start some protections, too. --Yamla (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you Yamla. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|A sanction is in place that prevents the problematic conduct at hand. I think most of us hope that Dawnseeker2000 can successfully appeal the article-space block, but current attempts at clarifying what that appeal should look like are apparently being lost to a mismatch in communication styles. Rather than let things get worse, I'm closing. {{pb}}D2000, take some time, and come back here when you're ready to discuss what you plan to do differently moving forward. Unfortunately, written communication is the only way to go here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{user|Dawnseeker2000}}

The previous recent discussion was archived with no resolution - but this user is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proloy_Saha&curid=50046699&diff=1290282822&oldid=1278162499 still removing valid links to towns and cities], in violation of MOS:GEOLINK, and in the example I have given above, I suggest MOS:OVERLINK as well. GiantSnowman 18:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:The user in the previous ANI discussion said this:

:"I do have a sense that the OP is at war so to speak. They've reverted me outright on a small handful of articles where they could have just reinstated the link. Throwing out my other work isn't necessary."

:In that case, why not just... leave out the removal of links from your editing work, now that a clear opposition from other editors is known? It saves the step of other editors intervening. 172.56.233.172 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Precisely - my issue now is the continued and persistent removal of links to cities, despite the clear concerns raised about this in the previous ANI. GiantSnowman 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see the GEOLINK issue as clear-cut, but we at the very least have a WP:AWBRULES problem: the tool is not meant for controversial changes. {{u|Dawnseeker2000}}, please stop removing geography links using AWB unless it becomes evident that you have consensus for them. See also WP:FAIT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Blocked from article space for a failure to communicate. Change block as required. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you. Despite their protestations, I am still waiting for a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1288971352&oldid=1287068648 this] from 10 days ago. GiantSnowman 17:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think I've ever been uncommunicative here. I spoke with the OP regarding this issue on my talk page and we also just had a discussion here at AN/I that's now archived. {{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} I don't know if you saw the earlier section here, but my edits conform to the MoS. I just think the issue is that for some reason, the changes get under GS's skin. {{pb}}These articles are fluid and links come and go frequently, so the intention isn't about a permanence, and I get the feeling that GS must feel like it's a black and white issue, but the reality is that many of these links will come back, as editors re-link them; linking cities is a natural thing to want to do.{{pb}}Again, there's the 1,220 byte response on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1279850780&oldid=1279810945] and a 1,877 byte response at the first AN/I discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1289343245]. I've been involved in this, but it's worrisome when GS, an administrator, doesn't seem to understand what's going on. For example, when I pointed out that my changes are backed by the MoS [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dawnseeker2000&diff=prev&oldid=1279318960] he replied "No, it's not" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADawnseeker2000&diff=1279810945&oldid=1279565054]. That comment is not aligned with reality. From MOS:LINKING, under 'What generally should not be linked: {{green|Settlements or municipalities (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario).}}{{pb}}I think that editor also has some strange ideas about the precedence of the two MoS items that related to what I'm doing. He said that MOS:GEOLINK is more precise and therefore it should have precedence. There's no information in the MoS that indicates anything like that; it's just in his own mind. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GoToComment/c-GiantSnowman-20250507182700-SarekOfVulcan-20250507182600]{{pb}}He then goes on to say that there's an implication that as far as MOS:GEOLINK goes, "It says "link only the first unit". That implies the first unit should be linked.". It doesn't say that, and again, I think this is kind of a stretch. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1289608036]. {{pb}}I think that these interpretations are a bit tiring, and I think that some editors were helpful also trying to point these items out, so that is kind of where we're at. It's difficult to have conversations in these circumstances. Dawnseeker2000 04:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I believe you are misreading MOS:LINKING.

::First, your wording about what should not be linked misses a critical word. The text reads {{tq|In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:}} (emphasis is in original text). Then it gives as examples of major cities New Delhi, New York City, and London.

::Second, MOS:GEOLINK specifically shows cities being linked as examples of correct linking — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi are you familiar with the first Ani discussion and the cities that I'm unlinking? Dawnseeker2000 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Are you familiar with WP:AWBRULES? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Appealing to extremes isn't helping to solve any problems here. Dawnseeker2000 12:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not {{tqq|appealing to extremes}}. Please answer the question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not going to engage with you in this way because the tone is disrespectful. You're welcome to try another approach. Dawnseeker2000 19:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If Bushranger pointing out the rules on using AWB is "appealing to extremes" and "disrespectful" then I'm sorry but there's a WP:CIR issue here. If you're going to use AWB, you have to follow the rules to its usage like everyone else. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate in that maybe you shouldn't have access to AWB at all if you're not going to follow AWB's rules. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In the example above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proloy_Saha&curid=50046699&diff=1290282822&oldid=1278162499 Proloy Saha]) you unlinked Odisha. Are you claiming that it is a major example of the items listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked? You unlinked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Model_School,_Rohtak&diff=prev&oldid=1290489518 Haryana]. I don't know if that is a state or city in India. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunkeshwar&diff=prev&oldid=1290489490 Here] you unlinked Maharashtra (unlinking India and Hindu was correct) but didn't unlink the word god. I'm sure that most readers are more familiar with the term god than a region of India. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm unlinking those states when followed by India and not when they are stand alone items, so yes, that's my position. And keep in mind, virtually any item can be up for debate based on familiarity. As for god, again, this particular settings file is limited to geographical items only—it is not something that is general purpose. And regarding individual items – I've been receptive to requests to not unlink specific cities and have modified the way I do things based on those discussions. Dawnseeker2000 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::"I'm unlinking those states when followed by India and not when they are stand alone items," but in doing so you are, possibly, unlinking unfamiliar terms. I'm all for unlinking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arctic_Archipelago&diff=1290357639&oldid=1290350349 common terms] but we need to tread carefully. And we're not vilifying you just asking that you be more mindful of what readers may be unaware of. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Listen everybody, it's not necessary to vilify me for doing this kind of work. It's simply a mechanism that I use to help process articles that have not had a date format audit in years. I use a heavily modified version of Ohconfucius's date format module in AWB, along with a large number of settings files that are dedicated to either regions of the world or specific topics. This way I can make some progress towards some of the older items at :Category:Use dmy dates. {{pb}}There shouldn't be any reason to be upset or respond in a narcissistic way here. These links come back over the course of the natural editing process, especially by new users. This one from a few hours ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Turkey%E2%80%93Syria_earthquakes&curid=72956318&diff=1290540904&oldid=1290496074] adds a link to Israel. That's one of the countries that I have on my list. Dawnseeker2000 13:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{nonadmin}} {{Tq|q=y|There shouldn't be any reason to be upset or respond in a narcissistic way here.}} Careful, this reads as a personal attack. I don't think the majority of your work is being vilified, either. The date format audits are very useful. It's just the location unlinking which has been seen by some as disruptive. There are now three arguments for why:

::# There is an apparent conflict between MOS:OVERLINK, described above, and MOS:GEOLINK which states, {{tq|q=y|link only the first [geographical] unit}}. The contention is that GEOLINK is more specific, represents a carve-out in the general OVERLINK instructions, and mandates the linking of the first unit.

::# You're using AWB. Thus, you must follow its rules, including rule #3. Your mass unlinking has been challenged, and thus is controversial. The onus is on you to demonstrate a positive consensus now. You should have done this as soon as the last ANI was raised.

::# WP:FAIT is similar to AWB Rule #3. Therefore, you must obtain consensus before making large numbers of controversial changes. The fact that they have been opposed makes them controversial.

::You may be right on the merits. But it's important that the objections be addressed by discussion before implementing controversial changes. If you and Giant Snowman have talked your way into an impasse, WP:VP would let you get broader consensus so you can edit without being accused of disruption. I hope this makes sense to you so you can get unblocked and back to editing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for that. Dawnseeker2000 14:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::All you need to do is say "I will not de-link geographical cities and states" (I have no issues with de-linking countries, for the avoidance of any doubt) and then actually stop doing that and you will likely be unblocked. The issue here is now not just your edits on GEOLINK, but your conduct generally and your attitude. GiantSnowman 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I probably wouldn't say something like that unless the manual style is changed regarding linking practices. Dawnseeker2000 19:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Actually, all you need to say is "I will not de-link geographical cities and states until there is a consensus somewhere that I am interpreting the MOS correctly in this specific type of situation." The block isn't to prevent you from doing it ever. It is to prevent you from doing it before there's a consensus about this. I'm not convinced what you're doing is incorrect, at least in some cases. I am convinced that you shouldn't be doing this using AWB when there is a question about your interpretation of the MOS. It is not as clearcut to me as either one of you seem to think it is. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are only blocked from editing articles. You are free to seek WP:Dispute resolution as too what editors feel is the correct interpretation. I suspect that it is similar to quenbeams comment above.' Edit:Sorry {{u|Floquenbeam}}, it appears I have no idea how to copy and paste. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Okay, thank you. I can do that. Dawnseeker2000 21:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: What a bizarrely stubborn response. It makes me wonder if you should have AWB access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: That's not really the response of someone compatible with a collaborative project, certainly. Dawnseeker2000, please take Floq's words above to heart. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This feels hostile now, so I'm going to back off. I don't know why you're responding like this (and please don't explain). I think trying to talk about complex issues via text is probably not the best way to go about it. I emailed you about this to give me a call. If I could just speak with someone verbally I think the understanding would increase quite a bit, but right now people are getting angry and I'm sure why. Anything I say or do seems to be used against me. And it appears some people are confused. I've been on this platform for 18 years and have been using AWB for 13. I certainly don't need to be asked what the rules are like a little boy. I appreciate those who have used a moderate tone, but some of y'all sound like police officers or judges (the type of people who think they never make mistakes). Call me Ninja and talk to me like a normal person please. Dawnseeker2000 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Your actions indicate you don't necessarily know what the rules are. That's why you were asked. It was a simple ask; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1290595792 this] is a truly bizzare response to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This methkd of communication isn't working. There seems a lot of inflated egos and I'd just like someone to talk to over the phone please. Dawnseeker2000 22:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Will someone please come up on one of the voice channels on Discord? This Thread has gotten to be a little bit chaotic and I just want to talk to a real human about what's going on here. I think there's a lot of confusion, a lot of misunderstandings, and it's really just not helping at all. Dawnseeker2000 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There doesn't seem to be any confusion at all. You have been asked to not make controversial edits with an automated tool. You want to continue making controversial edits.

:::::::::::You have claimed that this means someone else has a problem with their ego.

:::::::::::That's the whole issue in four sentences. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There is some confusion as text is one of the worst ways to communicate with people especially people you don't know well or if the topic is complex. Dawnseeker2000 23:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Okay, it sounds as if you feel there is some kind of confusion. Can you tell us what you are confused about?

:::::::::::::You seem to have ignored what I wrote, and to be ignoring a lot of what other people wrote, are you sure that isn't what is causing the problem? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The topic isn't complex. You want to use AWB to make edits that are controversial. Controversial edits may not be made using AWB. You have been told this clearly multiple times above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note I have just received a Wikipedia email from Dawnseeker2000 asking me to call them with their phone number. This is, I'm pretty sure, not kosher. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 15 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)

A user editing from multiple dynamic IPv6 addresses within the 2804:1884::/32 range (assigned to a Brazilian ISP) has been persistently editing dozens of football club season articles across top leagues in Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, France, and Brazil. The edits focus on updating match results, player stats, and formatting across many high-profile pages. The editor does not engage on talk pages and changes IPs frequently, often before warnings or discussion can occur, systematically avoiding scrutiny and accountability while maintaining de facto control over the content.

The editor frequently updates live data on articles such as:

• 2024–25 Atlético Madrid season
• 2024–25 AS Roma season
• 2024–25 FC Porto season
• 2024–25 Olympique de Marseille season
• 2025 Clube de Regatas do Flamengo season
• 2024–25 FC Bayern Munich season

They show a long-term pattern of shaping article structure, content, and statistics across a wide set of pages. No talk page engagement is ever made, either on article talk pages or on user talk pages. The user avoids scrutiny by rotating between IPv6 addresses, often within different /48 blocks of the same ISP-assigned range, making discussion impossible.

Known IPs include:

• {{userlinks|2804:1884:3c:3837:41ad:9757:a29:7dda}}
• {{userlinks|2804:1884:3c:37e6:cc48:f77:b633:763d}}
• {{userlinks|2804:1884:74:6705:30b7:5a99:2659:278e}}

This appears to be a coordinated and long-term pattern, not casual editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.244.58 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing in this report includes a statement of what is supposed to be problematic about the behavior of this person. Are their edits factually wrong? Bad in some other way? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:IP 51, you have also never posted to an article talk page, and you only post to user talk pages when you want a draft reviewed.

:I can't see any evidence that IPv6 is exerting "ownership", their edits seem constructive and uncontroversial, to the point that I had to dig to find just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024%E2%80%9325_Real_Madrid_CF_season&diff=prev&oldid=1289963610 one edit] of theirs with a reverted tag. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Unsourced edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_SE_Palmeiras_season&diff=prev&oldid=1235309857], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_SE_Palmeiras_season&diff=prev&oldid=1287643563], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_SE_Palmeiras_season&diff=prev&oldid=1280429108] Is this constructive? They don't engage in any discussion to justify their edits and keep repeating the same changes. 51.175.244.58 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::None of these links shows an edit by an IP user. It is your job (as the person opening a thread here) to make a case that something problematic is happening. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think they wanted to link the diffs before those, showing the edits by the IP being made, not being reverted by signed-in users. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 16 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)

• {{userlinks|Sooooob}}

Received an unsolicited "email notification" from this user, and their talk page is full of other people telling them to stop sending out emails, which all apparently relating to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sooooob&diff=prev&oldid=1209470510 some kind of survey/monetary offer]. they're also referring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sooooob&diff=prev&oldid=1212068221 to themselves as "our team"]. this is plainly WP:NOTHERE whatever it is. Copied from WP:AIV, where I was advised to take it here. Psychastes (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Blocked from article space and sending emails until they respond here. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Change block as required CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"Our team"? Sounds like a WP:ROLEACCOUNT to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{non admin comment}} Indef in order? Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:51, 16 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)

{{atop|1=Indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|More Walls}}

Notice given to ANI (here)

Was previously given a CTOP notice for Yasuke (Here) after removing sourced content twice [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1286534348] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1286538744] and making a topic on the talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1286535601] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1286603166] arguing without sources that the WIRED article sourced to comparisons of the backlash to the game and Gamergate were wrong but that the boycott of Hogwarts Legacy was like Gamergate.

After the CTOP notice they said that the game is itself a hatecrime [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1286764221] and then insulted another user saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_Shadows&diff=prev&oldid=1289133681] "it looks like all your activity is SJW white knighting or Ubisoft glazing."

I think it's clear the user is WP:NOTHERE. Relm (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:The video game is a hatecrime. Yeah, indef'd for not here. It's clear what their purpose is here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I honestly struggle to understand the ire that certain people have for this game. And I don't even like the Assassin's Creed series much. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{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}}

• {{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)

{{atop|1=Blocked for a week and warned the next block will be indefinite. If the behavior resumes after the block expires, re-report and/or let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|YouTubeFans2002}} keeps adding unsourced stuff to articles related to animated films. Disruptive edits on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. Multiple warnings in the last two or three weeks, no reaction. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Article fully protected for 3 days to halt the edit war. Further discussion about content is appropriate at the article's talk page, but not here.--Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Multiple IPs (that I presume belong to the same person) have been continuously edit-warring on the Charles R. Pellegrino page. They have been warned on their talk page and have been told to stop multiple times on the article's talk page. They continue to push their own edit regardless of being told to stop multiple times and have called others "vandals" writing a "hit piece". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:All of my edits make the page more impartial, professional, less flully and conform to the standard set on the Doris Kearns Goodwin page. Nevertheless, people who have an ax to grind against Pellegrino keep reverting any edit I make for...reasons? If you read back in the edit history, there are clearly people editing this article that have it in for the subject and I am trying to restore balance to the article. Thanks. 77.250.156.87 (talk) 14:04, 16 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)

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)

{{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)

{{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)

{{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)

{{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}}