Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127

User talk:148.76.131.222
User talk:148.76.131.222, Making unconstructive edits after multiple warnings. I just left them a friendly warning for their latest edit at Brock Purdy. Bruxton (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Anonblocked for a good while. For future reference, WP:AIV can handle this type of nonsense easily and with better speed. Courcelles (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Bruxton (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * faster than 2 minutes?--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tim O'Doherty
After reverting my edits at Charles III at and, User:Tim O'Doherty initially avoided discussion at Talk:Charles III. Only when warned that he would be taken to the admins for a block if he didn't discuss, did he bother to respond. But claimed that he didn't have to despite it being a violation of WP:NEGOTIATE.

He is now claiming he didn't avoid the discussion because he responded to me at his talk page. However, what he avoided mentioning is he only responded after I warned him of an admin complaint. Also he has decided to stonewall the discussion and removed it from his talk page (along with others). Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * RRF, I've tried to reason with you. I've been warned, along with others, on this very page, to take a break from Charles's talkpage. I would be damned if I did, and (now) damned if I didn't. Also, I archived my talk page, which I do when the TP grows too large. In this case, it was well over 30k bytes. It had nothing to do with you, honest :) Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know what reasoning you refer to Tim. Because asides from sticking to the same inaccurate claims of my edits being "editorial" (which is supposed to mean "he attitudes, opinions, and contents of something such as a newspaper, magazine, or television programme." per the dictionary), all you've done is avoid discussion multiple times.


 * Your reasoning being that saying things like "sources close to Camilla" is editorial language and only used by tabloids you won't talk further. Editorial means opinion so I don't understand your claims.


 * And reliable sources like Reuters and CBS News also use the same language.
 * France's financial prosecution office opened an investigation against arms maker Thales, a source close to the matter told Reuters.


 * However, a source close to the Secret Service confirmed to CBS News that Engel and the driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was physically attacked or assaulted by Trump and that the former president never lunged for the steering wheel of the vehicle.


 * I don't understand where you got the idea that only tabloids use it and it's editorial language.


 * You say you didn't remove the talk page because of me, yet your last message before the removal was the indication that you won't talk further. Also the last time you only waited for your talk page to grow to 10k, before that 5k, consisting of 3 and 2 sections respectively. And it wasn't even large. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do believe that it was editorial language. If not, then it was weasel. But, RRF, I don't see this as a blockable offence. The case against me is that for 2 days I didn't respond on the King's talk page, and after you asked me, I responded to you directly, and told you of my concerns with the added content. You yourself said "if you fail to within a few days I'll have to complain about you to the admins". I have responded, so let's be reasonable. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You've failed to show in what manner it's editorial or weasel, even reliable sources use that kind of language. You only responded after being forced by a warning, not because you wanted to. And after mere 2 replies where you actually discussed, you stopped talking again. Also please stop trolling by thanking me for my edits repeatedly. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thanked you for the notification and for the explanation. It's nothin' malicious. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you're still being combative, refusing to accept you've avoided discussion and refused to accept you're wrong about the editorial claims, you're clearly misuing the thanks button and not actually thanking. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything else about the background here, but I do know that the "sources close to" formulation is used by newspapers (mainly, but not only, by tabloids, and particularly with anything about the British royals or football transfers) to report rumours rather than facts, so has no place in a reliable encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Debashis84 has made a number of personal attacks and false accusation against me relating to my political and religious beliefs. I reverted this edit by him (The edit was the removal of sourced information claiming the source is unreliable. I said to take it to the talk page in my edit summary) and left a message at his talk. He did the same edit which I reverted again and left another message. 

His response to my first message was claiming that I spread propaganda and false information. I ignored this. In his response to my second message he accused me of spreading Khalistani (A supporter of the movement for an independent Sikh nation. A term used more as an insult) propaganda, using biased sources, and called me an idiot. I responded to this by saying that personal attacks are not allowed. He responded to this by saying “Pols agyi Pols”. This is an insult relating to a Khalistani Activist Amritpal Singh. This line is used by people to mock his supporters. It is clear from all of this that he is an uncooperative editor who uses insults and personal accusations over nothing. It is also clear he has a hatred with Khalistan supporters and labels anyone who disagrees with him as such. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not a admin, but this is a clear violation of WP:PA. An admin has to do something. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the POV edits removing sourced material are one thing, but the personal attacks when called out on them are quite another. Blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopping disruptive editor on Prodigy Math Game
Both IP's are making disruptive edits on Prodigy Math Game. Both IP's geolocate to Egypt and target the same article- looks like a single IP hopping disruptive user to me. Seems like a range block may be needed. -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, semied because I couldn’t find a range to block that would both help and be non-damaging. Courcelles (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IP Editor: 70.51.245.130 engaging in personal attacks and threats.
The IP Editor 70.51.245.130 recently made a series of edits to Talk:The Kerala Story (The Kerala Story being a controversial Hindi-language film which has faced accusations of promoting islamaphobia and misrepresenting facts, it released recently and seems to have attracted a number of its fans to wikipedia) in which he accused Tousif of having a "fundamental problem in his soul" in response to Tousif saying that IMDB could not be used for reception, he was reverted and warned against attacking other editors. A few minutes later he followed up his initial comment by complaining about his lack of perceived competency held by the articles editors in general, and Tousif specifically. Shortly after his initial complaints about Tousif he responded to another user with this, which im unsure exactly how to describe (it seems somewhere between WP:FORUM and a veiled attack). He went on to accuse editors of not including IMDB scores due to a left-wing bias and being muslim he also said "or you are waiting for a review direct from 'may peace be upon him'?", a line mocking the muslim practice of praying for their prophet after saying his name. It was then that I warned him for making personal and religious attacks. He responded by accusing wikipedia of bias, gloating about the success of the move, saying that "the rest of the world can burn", and saying that "Karma will hit you sooner than you know".

Im hoping to request a Tban from controversial India related articles at the least, and preferably a block of the IP. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this IP's contribs today. I think the regular escalating warnings on the talk page are sufficient. Their recent edits are testy by not personal attacks.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiUser70176 performs personal attacks and complains frivolously of being harassed by me
A clear personal attack:. I follow WP:DNTR, so I did not warn her. Besides, it is completely bogus: if I sense that something resembles a conspiracy theory, I almost feel compelled to make sport of it.

At she complains of being harassed by me, using very strong words about me. Why? For letting her know that I did not attack her own person. Yup, I have attacked National-Communism, but she wasn't born in 1969 (when the propaganda book was published). Nor in 1971 (when Ceausescu imposed juche policy upon Romania). So, for her there is absolutely no reason to feel personally attacked because of my own attacks upon National-Communist propaganda.

The strong words include:

I had an exchange of opinions with WikiUser70176. Her older username is public, and she also stated on her user page that she is a neuroscientist and a professor. So, it is not hard to find out who she is, and when she was born.

It concerns exchanges of opinions on 11 and 12 May 2023, at Talk:Origin of the Romanians and User talk:WikiUser70176.

My concern is that she sounds like she is writing from. E.g. she claims (see previous diff) that she is much older than me, while in fact I'm about five years older than her.

I have attacked National-Communist propaganda, embodied by a book of the Academy of Sciences of the Socialist Republic of Romania. For some unknown reasons, she told me that I was attacking her, and that I was harassing her.

In fact, the only thing I told her which could have triggered such reaction were that the sources in her edit were awful (those include a Master's thesis, a propaganda book from 1969, and a peer-reviewed article from 1950, see ). But my attacks were overtly upon National-Communism and I was not attacking her own person.

Could you sort this story out? It seems really, really strange. I suspect that more than one person uses her account, so a checkuser verification would be all right. E.g. telling herself at her own sandbox which users should be avoided does not make much sense, does it? It only makes sense if another person is telling her which users she should avoid.

Constantin Schifirneț is an article wherein she has a WP:COI, and if he is also using her own account, then it makes sense to say that he is much older and much more experienced than me. But it makes little sense for her to tell me that. I fail to see how a US professor of neuroscience would employ such a foul mouth in public, for all to see and examine her own words. It does not rhyme with even the basic ethics of psychology. But an old man who had too much wine would feel attacked without any real reason, and would spew those strong words at me. He would think that bashing an ideologically corrupt book from his youth means bashing him. Let me be very clear: the regime would not have published that book if it didn't overtly support National-Communism. We don't use that book for the same reason we don't use Russian propaganda outlets, or North-Korean propaganda outlets. The Romanian National-Communist regime is dead, its propaganda machine is dead, and it is highly ridiculous to get offended by such reality. Many of the facts from that book could be accurate, but generally speaking National-Communism has heavily corrupted historiography and the social sciences. So, that renders the source unreliable. Since even works which had little to do with official ideology were censored of any ideologically inconvenient idea. That's what "totalitarianism" means: very thorough ideological censorship.

And she reached very fast the conclusion that &mdash;one would assume that it takes a very long time to read my edits in order to establish my. Especially when carefully stressing that she is. The truth is that I don't hold grudges, but I have very clear ideas about users who are inapt to edit Wikipedia, and if they can surprise me through becoming adept at editing Wikipedia, so much the better. The difference: if I would be continually attacking them, it would be my own fault, but if they continuously miss the point, it is no fault but their own. E.g. for I knew that sooner or later he will get indeffed. And I was prepared to wait a long time for seeing it happen, and if I were attacking him too much during that time of uncertainty, it would have certainly been counted as my own fault.

What would the checkuser look for? Logins from multiple geolocations. If that's too fast for an intercontinental plane travel, then it is clearly a shared account. Or just far too often to be believable, since a plane ticket is expensive. I don't even know if a job as an associate professor is above poverty level.

If she told a bald-faced lie that she is much older than me, then the neuroscientist was gaslighting me. If she didn't then her account is a shared account.

At she explicitly denied being born in 1978.

I certainly don't have to make any excuses for attacking National-Communism. And she mistakenly believed that I was attacking her, instead of the ideology from the past. She has attacked me with baseless claims. Why a professor from US would feel so strongly about National-Communism? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow... This is... Wow, that all I have to say. Sadly, it seems that I have to reply to this person on this venue. You see, I refuse to engage in edit wars with him, to engage him on talk pages or even to revert any of his edits, no matter how deeply ignorant or POV pushing I think they are. These are the only 2 (two) instances of interaction with this person. The Origin of the Romanians is, understandably, a contentious topic. It's a lot on that page to unpack, should a braver editor want the job, which is not me, so I just added (not deleting anything!) a small paragraph asserting that Romanian language is a Romance language with 4 or 5 references, a fact that I thought no hothead on either side would have anything to object. User:tgeorgescu obviously did. So, I bowed out. It's my go-to behavior when encountering people with obvious axes to grind or POV pushing. I did not revert his edit, I explained my sources and the reason for explicitly refusing to edit-war with no 'personal attacks' (see ). To my surprise, he posted personal assertions on my page, unrelated to the issue, concocting something about my age and Communism, completely unrelated to the issue of Romanian language being a Romance language, under a heading of Edit War! I mean... again... wow. So I did lose my temper for a smidgen and used rather harsh language with my reply here, for which if @Tgeorgescu wants apologies now, fine, here they are (can I have some in return, if we're being petty?). More than that I tried to calm him down and make friends as you can see for yourselves. As for who I am irl, I don't owe anybody any explanation, especially about my age (seriously?) or gender (again, seriously?). If any sysop wants to know, drop me an email and I'll be more than happy to tell you, privately, I'll send you a CV if you want, my pubs too), but I'll not publicly post it to a person with documented Wikipedia editing issues, that constantly bullies or edit-wars on 4 different Wikipedias. I dare say that perhaps this is a good thing, i.e. my referral to the principal's office, maybe an admin could take a look at his activities.  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 12:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You have offered a non-apology apology. Again: you have viciously attacked me and above you continue to do it. I did not attack you, I have attacked National-Communism. I didn't know that that hits a nerve.
 * Here is the deal: provide a diff wherein I have been attacking your personally, either at Talk:Origin of the Romanians or that User talk:WikiUser70176. My two cents are that you are unable to provide such diff.
 * And yup, that book is a National-Communist propaganda book, but since you did not write that book, I don't see any personal attack in stating that it is a propaganda book.
 * Again your references at that edit were including a Master's thesis, a propaganda book from 1969, and a peer-reviewed article from 1950. I called those awful sources and I still stand by it.
 * From your previous username, there are clear your name, your surname, and the fact that you were born as a female (or at least you self-identified as female). So don't blame me for stating the obvious from data which you have yourself publicly disclosed at English Wikipedia. You have published your real-life identity and gender at this website. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a real name, you have no idea if it's mine or not, and I changed it specifically so that the real person with that name is not harassed by people like you, which is what you are doing right now (admins, help?). I am WikiUser70176 and that's all you need to know. Again, what does that have to do with Wikipedia editing that Romanian is a Romance Language? Sheesh...  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that real name was a mistake, it certainly wasn't my mistake. And certainly does not count as WP:OUTING. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. As for my userboxes... really, are we having this conversation? I can put whatever I want on my page as long as it doesn't offend anyone. I can make a userbox that I don't believe Australia exists (sorry, mates), that I am Creosote-rich and have multiple abodes on multiple continents and I take my Wikipedia-editing plane over neutral waters and edit from there (muwahaha). I can put up there that I have umpteens degrees (only five, actually) in Baby Yoda ontogenesis and Sky Dwelling Fungi, that my best friend is the Lecturer in Recent Runes and I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Come one, man, chill! Admins, please stop this nonsense. Is there any way I can get a restriction order on Wikipedia or equivalent?  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 13:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two of you in the number or level of personal comments. Please, both of you: stop commenting about each other. Consider this a warning against making personal comments about other editors/their motivations/their personal characteristics/their personal failings, period. Comment on the edits., remove that section of your user page; it's better to keep that kind of note-to-self off wiki. , honestly if you're going to complain about someone making personal attacks, it's best to avoid making actual personal attacks in the complaint itself. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I shall do so. Wait, you mean the Edit war section or my Sandbox note? You know what? I'll remove both. How about that?  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have commented upon their personal characteristics simply because I felt that they are gaslighting me about their identity. So, yeah, I started with an assumption of who they are in real-life, they have contradicted such assumption, and that has left me puzzled. I certainly did not mean that being a female would be bad. Since if they deny that they are that real name, their userboxes simply did not help to that effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "I have commented upon their personal characteristics simply because I felt that they are gaslighting me about their identity" Stop right there. No.  Just no.  People at Wikipedia are presumed anonymous and you are to make no presumptions about there identity, full stop.  You are not to believe anything about their identity one way or the other, and saying "I refused to assume good faith in this persons actions, so I felt justified in personally attacking them" is not doing yourself any favors.  Stop making presumptions on anything; not revealing personal information is adamantly not "gaslighting" you about their identity.  Their privacy is sacrosanct, and people who make assumptions about private information, or who pry into private matters, inevitably find themselves on the wrong end of everything.  Stop that this minute if you want to be taken seriously about anything.  Just quit it.  -- Jayron 32 15:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I offer no commentary on anything else here as there's a lot to take in, but keeping a list of editors you don't like with a series of personal attacks attached isn't helpful. Will you delete this, ? It's disruptive and not conducive to a collaborative project. — Czello (music) 13:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! Truthfully, I didn't think the sandbox was public; I am not that savvy on programming. It was a personal (read private) list. Just like my old username: I thought once changed, remains changed, I had no idea it was still public.  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 13:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, since a checkuser was imminent, their claim that WikiUser70176 isn't their previous username and real name could be itself false. Why? They could use it as a get me free out of jail card, in order to dodge the checkuser. Since if WikiUser70176 wasn't that real name, they have certainly did their best at their own user page to look like they were her. Their claim is now that I cannot prove that it is a shared account. And, it is true, I cannot prove it. But a checkuser can. Why I don't open a WP:SPI investigation? Because this is the opposite of WP:SOCKing, they are two persons who may be sharing the same account.
 * I cannot read any other way than they are actually accusing me of WP:OUTING. If their personal data were already oversighted, then I would be outing them. But since that didn't happen, I'm not. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OUTING states "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." It doesn't really matter if WikiUser70176 did formerly have an account with what looks like a real name.  You cannot presume that 1) the account name was their actual name and 2) that the former account name is something to be ever brought up or used against them ever.  If they changed it, that is their business.  If the old talk page posts have their old account name, you are still prevented by WP:OUTING from using that information for any reason.  There's no magic pill that makes outing another user allowable.  Even if they create an account with what looks like a common, European style name, you still cannot use that information against them as weapon.  Don't do that.  It's still outing and it's still an attack.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, how would I address their apparent WP:COI edits from the aforementioned article? And I did not cite any of their off-site opinions. I have only cited information publicly available at English Wikipedia. I did not keep up with changes in policy, but it wasn't apparent to me that merely citing their past edits at English Wikipedia would amount to outing.
 * You cannot name any of their off-site opinions which I have cited against them, simply because I did not read their off-site opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of a Conflict of Interest is not a weapon used to silence people who are arguing against you. If you believe that there is a conflict of interest that needs immediate addressing, "Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team." per WP:OUTING.  Send the information to ArbCom as noted here.  Let them deal with it.  It's not your job to play private investigator.  Send the relevant information to ArbCom and let them deal with it.  Bringing in information about what you think is a person's private identity based on whatever so that you can defeat them in some conflict you are having should not be done.  If the text of an article needs to be changed, comment on the content, not the contributor.  If you always do that, no one will accuse you of anything. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Without weighing in on the main issue, I'd like to point out that the statement But an old man who had too much wine would feel attacked without any real reason, and would spew those strong words at me implies that the subject of the article, a BLP, is a drunkard, with little evidence (and this is without taking into account the accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry implicit in the conjecture that the person in question and WU70176 are the same person). I think op should strike that comment, for policy reasons, because it weakens his argument, but fundamentally out of decency. Ostalgia (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of promotional and unsourced content at Festivals in Aruba
I can't discuss this at 's protected talk page, but I've never seen an admin restore this much unsourced promotional garbage, while placing the onus on me to come up with sources. This was created a dozen years ago by a promotional account,, and really could have been--and can still be--speedy deleted as spam. A Google search of most of the festivals turns up tourism websites as the first hits. I can certainly prune the most obvious advertorial prose, but we're still left with vapor. Would appreciate more eyes. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think my Talk page is temporarily protected because a it was persistently vandalized by a recent sockpuppet (Vandman). I'm not exactly sure why you brought this ANI though as it seems like a discussion that could have occurred on the article talk page. I reverted your removal of almost all content on this article. I was originally going to tag the page for speedy deletion because it was almost a blank page until I saw that you have removed all of the article content. So, I reverted your edit and suggested that you search for sources to remedy the problem. If you think it is spam, then tag it for speedy deletion. I don't know about other editors and admins but I think it is better to tag the article for others to look at rather than completely gutting it down to a single, vague sentence and a mention of COVID restrictions. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . I figured a discussion at the article talk page would get no attention, but if you think it's more appropriate there, we can move this. I was concerned that almost any action I took there tonight--reverting large sections of unsourced content while leaving others intact, or tagging for speedy or even adding a reference tag--would appear more contentious than beginning a discussion. Frankly, I didn't know how best to respond to a restoration that seemed so off, coming from an experienced admin. This is a thirteen year-old puff piece that's never been adequately sourced, so I was flummoxed. But honestly, I've said my piece and will let it go now. Cheers, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added six references to reliable sources at Festivals in Aruba. They were all trivially easy to find. The OP/IP could have done the same thing, instead of bringing to this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good--and you drew me back in. It sounds like two admins have tried to put the onus on me to find sources. And since the advert tag has been removed prematurely, I'll go back in and clean out the residual fluff. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Superb Owl; ongoing BLP, NPOV, OR concerns
After almost seven years of editing and numerous exhortations by several editors to stop and re-read the rules, appears to press forward with serious WP:MINOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR concerns, including topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions (US politics, Russia-Ukraine). More importantly, the user does not seem to be improving or correcting their editing style, and their responses to other users suggest a continued failure to understand core policies.

The significant NPOV/BLP issue below occurred after I tried to engage the user about similar issues. It seems no improvement was made.

It may be time for administrative action to avoid other editors continuing to spend hours cleaning up. I would suggest a temporary overall block to enforce the importance of the above policies, or a longer topic ban on political (US and world) topics.


 * WP:MINOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV concerns  on : On May 10, 2023, in an edit marked “minor,” Superb Owl added “pro-Kremlin oligarch” to the name of Rinat Akhmetov with no citation. In addition to being clearly not a minor edit per WP:MINOR (not an edit that “could never be the subject of a dispute”), it’s also a serious BLP issue without a citation. Akhmetov’s page does not call him “pro-Kremlin” or “pro-Russia” (there's about a page of mixed pro- and anti-Ukraine activities that doesn't boil down neatly to "pro-Kremlin oligarch").  I believe that being called “pro-Kremlin” is “contentious” BLP information subject to WP:BLPREMOVE and I have removed it. The edit was hidden under a “minor” label and thus escaped scrutiny.

That example alone may be enough for administrative action given the importance of WP:BLP, especially in areas with discretionary sanctions, but the examples below are meant to show that the problems are pervasive despite several attempts by other editors.


 * Violations of WP:MINOR. Rampant in user's edit history: . I have warned, but at seven years into editing this should be second-nature.


 * WP:CITE concerns on : May 9, 2023 I have extensively discussed this with the user on their talk page and won’t rehash it all, but to summarize: User:Superb Owl added without citation that “most organizations” oppose proposal regarding “E-democracy.” By itself, not a huge problem but emblematic of adding controversial information without any citations, many years into editing.


 * WP:OR concerns on : May 9, 2023 I have extensively discussed this with the user on their talk page and won’t rehash it all, but to summarize: User:Superb Owl modified a fully cited sentence based on their own uncited reading of a Google n-gram viewer. Without a citation there was no way to validate the user’s work. Their use of the n-gram viewer to overrule a citation was clearly "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." By itself, not a huge problem but emblematic of ongoing problems.


 * WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns on : February 6, 2023. Magidin and Drmies extensively discussed it with Superb Owl and in the talk page for Supreme Court (see all seven discussion topics with the same users at ), as well in the edit history for Supreme Court (too numerous to diff). I won’t rehash it all but it appears that it reached a disruptive level around whether “democratic backsliding” should be a leading criticism (see below), in addition to many other concerns where User:Superb Owl was not responsive to constructive criticism.


 * WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns on . Without citation, user added the cost of a citizens’ assembly as an “advantage” based seemingly on personal belief.


 * WP:NPOV (?) concerns on : on February 6, 2023, User:Superb Owl created a redirect from “US Democracy” to . This is obviously not the correct redirect target, but it matches the user’s interest in “democratic backsliding”.


 * WP:NPOV, WP:CITE concerns on : on February 6, 2023, User:Superb Owl added that criticisms of the Senate also render their judicial nominations illegitimate. There are probably WP:RS to support this, but none were included. Again, seven years into editing it should be second nature that contentious claims require citation to WP:RS.


 * WP:AGF concerns on : on February 4, 2023, User: Superb Owl accuses User:Goodone121 of “Silencing speech” for removing his edits, reverts Goodone121, then later reverts Drdpw and Magidin’s removals of the same content.


 * WP:3RR concerns on : around January 30 to 31, 2023. The user adds arguably unrelated criticism re “democratic backsliding”. It is removed by at least 2 editors and reinstated repeatedly by User: Superb Owl.

Etc. I have only looked back to February as there’s more than enough here.
 * WP:OR, WP:NPOV concerns on . User asserts without citation that “Student activism is famous for its bravery, especially when in the opposition to autocratic regimes.” Nearest cite is to a memorial for a particular activist, not any overall study of activism. The edit is not uniquely objectionable, but emblematic of continued insertion of personal opinion without citation.

In some recent talk page messages, User:Superb Owl has claimed that users with substantive concerns about their edits should "welcome the newcomers." However, these issues go back to 2016. In 2016 User:Superb Owl made seemingly non-joking WP:AGF accusations that a popular TV show article was made by paid lobbyists: “I am willing to bet that this was created by paid activists who were trying to redirect traffic away from the page on soda tax.” That old history doesn't deserve any action by itself, but it undermines any claim that the user is a "newcomer" and that editors expressing serious concerns are not being "welcoming".49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thorough review and pointers, @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. Here's some additional context in case it's helpful:
 * - While my first edits came in 2016, I only started editing significantly in the past six months. Based on the state of some of the articles I was reading I probably took too many cues as to what was ok and what wasn't. I realize that I should sit down and read the instruction manuals more carefully before assembling words on the site but did not realize I might have made mistakes that would upset someone so much that wouldn't get prevented along the way by looking at templates inserted on pages I was reading and editing or noted by patient and kind experienced editors. On the other hand, when editors have come across as very angry (especially on politically-themed articles) or did not explain reversions well it can be hard to know how genuine the feedback is or if it's designed to gaslight.
 * - I did not have as solid of a grasp of the line between minor and non-minor and will incorporate that standard going forward. That's really helpful and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.
 * - re: Supreme Court disputes, while a couple of the regulars you mention seemed quick to anger and appeared less than welcoming of center-left sources and viewpoints, they did teach me about WP:Voice and I have learned from them and the page seems to be in a good place with no ongoing disputes.
 * - re: Citizens' Assemblies, I was not done making edits to that page when that first change you referenced was made, one of the next changes was to rename the 'advantage' section 'opportunities', since advantages/disadvantages often are not clearcut but just has the potential to be depending on execution. I've made this improvement to other articles as well and added in-line templates to each sentence while tracking down the sources I read.
 * - As far as US Democracy redirect, I don't disagree with your choice of landing page but it seems like the previous choice was reasonable to create and then direct it to a page focused on the quality of our democracy in the US and instead of one primarily about the Republican institutions we have today
 * - As far as the Senate sentence, it seemed pretty self-explanatory but I understand why a source is really desirable. Again, I wish someone had flagged that instead of deleting it right away but in the future will be sure to cite one in the first place if that point about the added importance of the legitimacy of the Senate and how it carries over into the judiciary is reintroduced in the article.
 * - The student activism sentence merely summarizes the rest of the paragraph with 6 other citations. I can see however why a summarizing source or three would be better. I can and will be more thorough with my citations going forward.
 * I really do appreciate the time you've taken to make me a better editor - thanks again and am always grateful for anyone else's thoughts as well. Superb Owl (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing attempts at New Democracy (Greece)
Admin attention may be required at the article New Democracy (Greece). Elections are approaching in Greece (they are set for the next week) and we have been witnessing a surge of POV-pushing disruption incidents aiming at whitewashing the country's ruling political party which both the international and local media have criticized its anti-democratic tendencies. I will appreciate if the admins keep an eye on the article for the next couple of weeks. Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'd have to agree with the IP that that final sentence getting edit warred over is not a great summary of the article, however. Unless I'm looking cross-eyed or missing some context, there's a section in the body listing good and bad things about his presidency, but then the sentence summarising the criticism is included again verbatim in the lead, while the praise is left out completely. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This paragraph which they want so badly to remove, was there since September 2022 and these editors/IPs definitely had plenty of time to expand it upon constructively to include the "positive" aspects of the party's policies but they didn't bother. None tried to stop them, just they didn't bother. They only seek to remove the "negative" ones alltogether, suspiciously too close to the date of the national elections. Sorry but no. This is a blatant case of political whitewashing and goes against the spirit of the WP:NPOV policy and constitutes a characteristic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * Anyways, this "negative" information they seek to remove, was added not to mud the party's public image, but because it is too important to bury at the end of the article, it is about the party's stances and policies for which it drew global attention and criticism, and whose outcomes have consequences to the lives of the people and this is how it is done for the political parties elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as Golden Dawn (Greece), Fidesz or Justice and Development Party (Turkey) and by no means can be removed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting that the IP is here to push their own POV, to be clear. I just noticed that that sentence is not a very balanced reflection of the alinea it originated from. I'll take a look at it later to see if I can tweak it a bit --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an admin but I've added it to my watchlist - I have experienced significant disruption in the Greek politics area (specifically around far-right parties) so I'm unsurprised more is taking place. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 13:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The disruption continued, and this left me no option but to request an increase in the article page protection level.


 * For those unfamiliar with politics in Greece: this sudden surge of political disruption on the article, these days, coincides with the reports in the local media that the ruling political party is carrying a whitewashing campaign aiming at improving the party's public image ahead of the upcoming elections: , which is why it has me worried and brought it to the ANI. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * yikes. Good to know! --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Awful 'copyediting' by SuspiciousReality70
I've spent a couple of hours picking through several hundred edits by. In a few cases they represent minor upgrades, but mostly they accomplish something else that requires real initiative: make articles already compromised by promotional tone even worse. Every edit is accompanied by the meaningless and deceptive summary, "Fixed one part so that it fits the tone/style of wikipedia." Please feel free to cherry pick any half dozen edits and see. It's left to administrative discretion whether a block is appropriate now, but I submit the disruption merits sanctions. Thanks, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I was thinking the same thing: . 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the pattern of topics chosen is seemingly random and in many cases uncommercial, and the edits are coming in small but very rapid bursts. It makes me wonder: could this be a good-faith editor who thinks running text through an AI to rewrite it is a good idea? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say the evidence supports that theory, and this seems to be their entire contribution history. I would block per WP:CIR, and I think it would be a good idea for us to write up a guideline on this in short order. Was it just yesterday there was an editor blocked for doing this, and they also used an AI to compose their unblock request? This is getting out of hand quickly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The common thread is choice of articles that have been tagged for unencyclopedic or advertising tone. They then go into a (usually) unsourced passage and the bloviation commences, along with the edit summary telling us the part has been 'fixed'. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Suggested edits" feature for newcomers surprisingly causes newcomers to do what they are being asked to do, independently of their capability to do so.
 * Want to create an article? Add some unnecessary wikilinks and try to copyedit text others have failed to write correctly first. And yes, this is indeed better than bad article creations, but it causes maintenance too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have left them a talkpage message urging them to step away from the AI and edit articles directly. Agree with DavidEppstein that they're likely acting in good faith but their additions are usually worse than the original text. If they persist without engaging with anyone's concerns, they will reach disruptive editing territory.
 * And as a side note, it continues to be horrifying how many articles are just puff pieces lifted from company websites. If SuspiciousReality70 has done any good work it's that their contributions page provides a "to do" list of articles in need of major rewrites.-- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reverted some of the "copyedits" that made the articles affected more promotional. Considering this editor is acting in good faith in my opinion, I would propose a warning followed by some length of block if they continue the poor copyedits. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 03:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, their copyediting targets are a (probably completely random) subset of Category:All articles with a promotional tone, so we do have that list already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This category has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. This notice will hide itself when this category has fewer than 10000 items. I don't know how much good that list is doing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * has hit the problem on the head: a newcomer is likely to end up at somewhere like which calmly categorises copy-editing as "Easy", and suggests it for newcomers. Copy-editing is hard. You will meet sentences that are grammatically wrong but also ambiguous, which means either finding a way to correct the grammar while retaining exactly the same ambiguity, or (better) going back to sources to find out which meaning is correct. Copy-editing requires nuance; non-native-level speakers will often correct "He does eat fish on Fridays" to "He eats fish on Fridays", because at their level it is most likely that "he does" is an error. But in the context, it is likely to be a deliberate emphasis, asserting a contradiction of a (possibly-implicit) expectation or statement that he doesn't/shouldn't. It was bad enough when copy-editing WP was a practice-ground for language students, but AI brings a real risk of superficially reasonable copy-editing that's completely unaware of its effects on the underlying meaning. In addition to sorting out SuspiciousReality, we should get rid of every suggestion that newcomers gravitate into copy-editing. Finding references, a "medium" activity in that list, is far more useful, and much safer. Elemimele (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement. As someone who did copy-editing frequently in the past, anyone who doesn't have a proficient grasp of the English language will likely do the reverse of what is intended. Small, obvious grammar and/or spelling mistakes are easy, but most of the pages tagged for some form of copyedit likely need major changes or re-writes, which new or non-native editors would struggle with. I would be in favour of replacing the copyedit section of the "suggested edits" section with categorisation and move the "Copy editing" section in Task Center to intermediate editors, although I think there would be a need to be an RfC to gain consensus. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would be very dangerous for BLPs. Newbs might not understand why Obama isn't categorized under "Left-wing politics" (not a category for BLPs, not a defining label, original research), or why Trump isn't categorized as "Fascism" or "Patriotism" (depending on their views), and so on and so forth. Those two are protected, but most BLPs aren't, and it's a minefield best avoided.
 * I agree with Elemimele. Sourcing is something newbs might get wrong, but it should still be the first thing they learn, and the risk of harm is low — DFlhb (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; swapping sourcing and copyedits is probably the most low-risk option. That being said, if I or another editor was to raise an RfC, I would have no idea where the RfC would be hosted, or how someone can even make this change. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 09:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally the discussion would be at WP:Village pump (proposals), or if it's only to change the one page then it would be at the applicable talk page. For what it's worth, I'll support any measure if it has a good chance of teaching better sourcing practices early on. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. If potentially a few more editors say they would support it, I will raise an RfC on this topic. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and boldly reorganized WP:TASKS to list fact-checking first and to include a disclaimer that copy-editing requires high English proficiency, if not Wikipedia proficiency per-se. Copy editing is still listed under "beginner", but it's now listed after reference and categorization work. signed,Rosguill talk 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded on that and mentioned that they should be familiar with WP:MOS, as even people with proficient English may not be aware of the conventions used on here. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well if our goal is to stop 'em dead in their tracks, telling them to begin by familiarizing themselves with MOS should certainly do the trick. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it means less work to follow up on afterwards, so be it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 10:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to pretty much all the above. They have left a roadmap for overtly promotional articles to clean up. More broadly, agreed that it's not too soon to draft guidelines on dealing with AI, though I don't know what that would look like or if they'd be enforceable. And yes to making it more difficult, not easier, for new editors to bombard the site with inept copy edits. Prior to this report, I came across a wave of edits by newly registered accounts, cross-pollinating multiple articles, primarily adding wikilinks. They tend to be indiscriminate in their application; I suspect most don't use English as their native language. I think it dovetails with this discussion. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was a professional copy editor for many years, so (at the risk of invoking Muphry's law) I'm very familiar with the amount of nuance it requires. But I don't agree with this at all. Newcomers to Wikipedia are just newcomers to Wikipedia. They're not necessarily newcomers to copy editing, nor to the English language. This is most likely why adding references is considered "medium" and copy editing "easy" -- to add references, you must be familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies and its markup syntax, and you'll probably have to do some additional editing or writing to incorporate them. But copy editing doesn't require any Wikipedia-specific knowledge. The skills are on entirely different axes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I am in support of this change is not because sourcing is easier (it isn't), it's because teaching newcomers to source earlier is fantastic, as so many reverts I do in vandalism-fighting is good faith editors adding unsourced information, and because an unreliable or bare source is likely to do less harm then what some editors do with copyediting; make the article worse because they don't understand WP:MOS or don't speak English as a native language. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with a newcomer deciding to copy-edit, assuming they have the competence to do it. I'm just saying it's a really bad idea to announce from the roof-tops that copy-editing is a safe and trivial task for newcomers. That just encourages people with iffy language-skills and little idea what they're doing to think that nothing can go wrong. I don't want to discourage the thoughtful, new copy-editor; I want to discourage the idea that everyone and his dog should wade into Wikipedia armed with Grammarly or ChatGPT and start shuffling words willy-nilly. At the very least, the advice pages should suggest that copy-editing might appeal to the newcomer with native-level language skills, good attention to detail, and a willingness to check facts.
 * On sourcing, I'd agree. It's just as hard to do, but it's relatively safe, because a bad source is obvious to everyone and can easily be removed. A changed meaning, whose edit is buried somewhere in a page history, is a much more pernicious problem. Elemimele (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's knowledge and understanding of both English language and Wikipedia policy that make the difference. I encountered a copy-edit recently that had "corrected" the revenues of the see of Glasgow to, evidently unaware that the sentence referred to an Episcopal see. Many of their other contributions included sweeping ENGVAR changes. Going back only a little further, we have this list of highlights from another editor: . XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @JML1148 Not sure that's the case. Suppose a good-faith editor either misreads a reliable source, or uses a source that seems fine but is unreliable (a book that's actually a WP:CIRCULAR citation), and thus adds false information to the article. That might not be caught for years, if ever, since if it looks OK on the page, it's unlikely anyone's going to recheck the source -- especially if it's offline, in a different language, etc. But if a good-faith editor poorly copy edits an article, that will be fairly obvious (as evidenced by this thread). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Gnomingstuff. Basically any part of Wikipedia editing is hard in some sense, but copy-editing is clearly less hard than most other things, and in particular is much, much less hard than adding sources.  --JBL (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "[M]uch, much less hard" looks like an obvious overstatement to me, which leaves me wondering how much value there is in trying to generalize the difficulty of certain categories of task to this level. I'm a person who adds sources to articles with some regularity, usually remembers how the sfn and harv family templates interface with ref tags, knows how to fill out appropriate citation template parameters, etc., but if I had been tasked with rewriting for non-promotional tone the same set of articles this poor editor's chatbot was, I envision myself giving up in despair without rewriting a single paragraph, my soul a bit dimmer for the experience.Not all copy-editing is equally difficult, not all sourcing is equally difficult, not all editors have the same skillsets. Even if their mediawiki skills are assumed to be negligible, people have varying degrees of fluency in the language, varying technical skills in programming or markup related areas, varying familiarity with conducting research beyond first page of google results, etc. Honestly it might make sense to have new editors self-grade on their strengths in three or four fields and assign difficulties to tasks based on their own assessments of themselves rather than apply a one-size-fits-all hierarchy, whatever consensus here might determine that should be. Folly Mox (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For information, I posted a comment at the Mediawiki site I originally mentioned, and received an extensive reply at . Some of it relates to things that admins at individual wikipedias can do to influence how newcomer tasks are selected and presented, and it also gives information about what the wikimedia team have planned for the future. Elemimele (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How to properly format a reference is moderately complicated but by itself is only one very small part of why finding references is not a beginner task. Here is a typical beginner approach to finding a reference for an uncited sentence: put the sentence into Google, find a reasonably well-written article on the subject that supports the claim as one of the top ten hits, and use that webpage as the reference.  The only problem: the page they found is probably a Wikipedia mirror, or some other source that has copied its content directly from us.  This is only one possible failure mode among many.  Finding and adding references intersects with lots and lots of content policies and guidelines (OR, RS, MEDRS, BLP, ...) that even experienced editors moving from one area to another in the encyclopedia struggle with -- formatting references is just the tip of the iceberg. JBL (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course that is true for citing certain kinds of content and untrue for others (in the topic areas I work in, for example, I never run into BLP or MEDRS). If a new editor has any published nonfiction books on their shelf, or one or two textbooks lying around from undergrad, there's already tons of stuff they can add references about without ever learning how to distinguish a good google result from a problematic one. I think this conversation is evidence that thinking of broad classes of task without any finer granularity than the change to the edited article is a fraught method. Folly Mox (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the AI-assisted unblock request mentions above (or a different one?); it would be comical if it weren't so worrying. The user in that instance denies they used any tool, but, well, I don't believe them. I now understand the principal talent of AI when it comes to writing is using more words, like stretching a piece of elastic. To return to SuspiciousReality70, they should definitely be blocked if they continue perpetrating elastic-stretching like this. They haven't edited since being taken to ANI, whether or not ANI is the reason they stopped; I'll try to keep an eye out for re-emergence. Thank you for drawing attention to this user, 76.119.253.82. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC).
 * Thank you, . I'd be surprised if we hear from them again. The specific case points to a much larger and troubling future issue. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a different one. I didn't link to the one I was referring to because I didn't want to call anyone out, but of course now I can't find it. It was a fairly new user, I recall, not a 12-year-old account. But I agree their first two unblock requests were at least not written by the editor, the language is completely different. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a request that was brought up at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Vipz deletes reliable sources and adds something that is not written in the sources
Greeting!. I would like to report a user Vipz for violating Wikipedia's rules. It all started on February 28, 2023, when ip changed what it says in the sources []. I tried to return it to the original and correct what is written in the source, but user Vipz does not allow it, it persistently returns to something that is not written in the source. Then I added three more verified sources that say the same thing and the administrator Daniel Case protected the page, which is fine. After that, the user Vipz used the protected page and deleted my sources [], because he knows that I cannot restore them, because they are protected. In all sources it says "Croatian" not "Serbo-Croatian" which you can check here [], [], [], []. We even tried talking on the talk page, but it ignores what it says in the sources []. These were the last changes to the page [].I hope that someone will fix the page and write correctly what is written in the sources. Thank you 93.138.3.122 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You haven't notified Vipz. I've done that here: User talk:Vipz. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 10:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I didn't know how to do that93.138.3.122 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a content dispute, not a behavioral issue (though I advise the IP to tone down the rhetoric on the talk page). There's a WP:NATIONALIST debate over whether Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are distinct languages or standard varieties of a single language. I also note that this is covered under WP:CTOP restrictions, requiring higher than normal standards in conduct. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Serbian language, Croatian language, Bosnian language , and Montenegrin language are different languages. In communist Yugoslavia, the communists called all these languages Serbo-Croatian, unfortunately the communists did not recognize these other languages. Before the formation of Yugoslavia, Croats had their own name, Serbs had their own name for their language. The name Serbo-Croatian was created in Yugoslavia, it did not exist before. When Yugoslavia fell apart and independent states were created, everyone again took their own language name as it was before Yugoslavia. User Vipz is an activist who advocates for reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language and Yugoslavia again as far as I understand from his main page [] but that has nothing to do with today's situation when there are independent countries that again have their own language. User Vipz he does not acknowledge the sources because he thinks it is still Yugoslavia and is an activist who advocates for reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language.93.138.3.122 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nationalist ranting here won't get you very far. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Use of the term is nearly two hundred years old; it was coined when Karl Marx was six years old, and the premise of a united language is featured in the 1911 Britannica.  That teeth-gnashing nationalists can't stand the concept that their dialect might be the same basic language as that country's may be so (and is also addressed in the main article), but that doesn't change basic fact.   Ravenswing      23:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely how fellow Wikipedians put it above (thank you @Ravenswing). I'm open about my political views on my userpage—yes, I stand against the mindless linguistic purism and separatism that fuels segregation such as that of "Two schools under one roof"—but the fact that Serbo-Croatian is a single language is a purely linguistic one. It is reflected by the fact that the only place I posted an invite to join Talk:Kajkavian discussion on is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. –Vipz (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Serbo-Croatian is a technical terms, a sort of leftover from the 19th C. It has been argued I don't know how many times that this "language" never existed, anymore than Urdu-Hindi or Czecho-Slovak. As it is, it is an "ideological language" without history, presence & future. It is still used, in varying degrees, in some ISO standards, especially Ethnologue- which has nothing "scientific" about it (it's just a Christian missionary organization). Serbo-Croatian could be left in Wikipedia pages as a historical phase in Croatian and Serbian languages; also, as a testament how linguistics simply doesn't deal with questions whether various forms of language are separate languages or varieties of a language. Linguists like Kloss and Clyne did not elaborate closely on the issue, but anyone who has read their works can come to the conclusion: languages who may be highly mutually intelligible, but belong to different national-historical cultures are different languages. Peter Rehder's book on Slavic languages treats Serbo-Croatian as an ideological phase which brought Croatian and Serbian languages- real "entities"- closer, but never succeeded to unify them. Wikipedia pages on Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian are a disgrace & should be completely rewritten if English Wikipedia intends to keep any authority on the issue.In fact, it repeats Greater Serbian nonsensical claims, because Croatian Štokavian heritage until the 19th C- which is 95% of Štokavian written corpus for more than 5 centuries -is conspicuously absent from the Croatian language page. So, we come to the bizarre information that the 1st Croatian grammar, Kašić's, from 1604., belongs to the history of Serbo-Croatian- a complete absurdity. So, Croatian Štokavian dialect heritage from the 12th C on is forced out of the Croatian language page & "transferred" to the Serbo-Croatian page, where more than 80% of sources are Croatian. Are you saying that Serbo-Croatian is "actually" Croatian & that Serbian & Bosnian are, so to speak, Croatian for dummies? Another issue is a commissary-style of discussion with constant ideological labels of "nationalists". Well- anyone who, from the vantage point of Yugoslav failed experiment (a totalitarian state) calls others "nationalists"- why would that be bad, anyway?- is promoting the remnants of Yugoslav nationalism, which was & remained a sort of Fascist ideology (Yugoslav "race", Dinaric barbarogenius, hatred of the "decadent" West, mass ethnic cleansing of Albanians etc.). Though- I think it's all a waste of time. If common sense is not enough- from the 1995-2000 no book was translated from "Serbo-Croatian"; no grammar was written for Serbo-Croatian; even ludicrous name games testify about it: is it Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, or bcs, or bcsm? Where is a single language in the world with an alphabet soup for a name & with no native speakers of that alphabet language which doesn't possess a single text in its corpus? This all is laughable ... Mir Harven (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (shrugs) Yes, we get that there are many people with nationalist axes to grind; welcome to the Balkans, right? As it happens, there are many eminent linguists, writers, scholars and others who disagree with you.  Perhaps you will forgive us for accepting their expert opinion on the matter over yours.   Ravenswing      22:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not a single "eminent linguist" which would agree with that failed farce, as I commented:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Declaration_on_the_Common_Language#Extremely_biased_article These "eminent linguists" are mostly journalists, actors of a Yugoslav nationalist provenance, plus an anti-Croatian third rate language ideologue Snježana Kordić who didn't write anything worthwhile on the Croatian or Serbian language matters- just a bunch of commissary-type denunciations. And even if they had agreed- that wouldn't matter a whit. The name & identity of a language are more important than a pamphlet concocted by a small cohort of paid amateurs & ideological Yugoslav apologists of a vanished totalitarianism. Mir Harven (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this name was coined by Austrian & German philologists in the early 19th, when they tried to ascertain "what belongs to whom". Carefully watch the videos in English:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-2eM9S6i8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rhPZryNp-M and, if you know Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDONIhqHokU, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDb0YPidPU Mir Harven (talk) Mir Harven (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian and Croatian are not mutually exclusive concepts. And there are no universal standards of what constitutes a language or a dialect. In the end, if there is a predominant consensus among Croatians to consider Kajkavian as a Croatian dialect, then its fair to highlight that in the definition in the lede of the article. If you have references, including SFRY era references, how Kajkavian would be a Serbo-Croatian dialect, that can be reflected in the article. The issue is not to promote absolute 'truths' but that the article provides a balanced view and representation of the article subject. As per the sources disputed, I'd suggest skipping https://www.akademijaoxford.com/en/croatian-language-courses.php which isn't really an authoritative WP:RS. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the relevant consensus is not among Croatians, but among subject experts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:VEXBYSTERANG User:Mir Harven
"Bosnian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language mainly used by ethnic Bosniaks. Bosnian is one of three such varieties considered official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina ..." "Croatian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language mainly used by Croats. It is the national official language and literary standard of Croatia ..." "Montenegrin is a normative variety of the Serbo-Croatian language mainly used by Montenegrins and is the official language of Montenegro. ..." "Serbian is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language mainly used by Serbs. It is the official and national language of Serbia ..."
 * Serbo-Croatian is the parent article and higher-level topic for official varieties thereof under the current English Wikipedia's content organization.
 * See the definition of Serbo-Croatian given in the article's lead: "Serbo-Croatian ... is a South Slavic language and the primary language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. It is a pluricentric language with four mutually intelligible standard varieties, namely Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin ."
 * See the definitions of Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin:
 * See Category:Serbo-Croatian language. It contains Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin as members.
 * See the infoboxes for Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin: (Language Family: South Slavic languages --> Southwest Slavic languages --> Serbo-Croatian ... --> Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin)
 * See the outline of Slavic languages branches in Slavic languages: It says "Serbo-Croatian --> Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin"
 * The proper place to try out the Serbo-Croatian negationist theory and to propose fundamental rewriting and reorganizing all of this content is the Talk:Serbo-Croatian. But the article is subject to lasting consensus about such things, and is sourced. So it should be clear by now that starting such a discussion would not be advisable, as it would be an attempt to promote a fringe viewpoint. Therefore:
 * Sanction User:Mir Harven, who does not seem to be particularly WP:HERE for misusing ANI to WP:SOAPBOX his WP:FRINGE theories about Serbo-Croatian—Alalch E. 23:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is not subject of any consensus. Were it so, it wouldn't need to be always protected & critics of a dogmatist non-discursive approach of some Serbo-Croatist ideological clique forcibly silenced. Serbo-Croatist dogmatists have not addressed crucial points: a) there is no strict linguistic definition of pluri-centric languages, hence linguistics is not a science any more than literary theory or psychoanalysis, b) linguistics, any variety, cannot decide whichever name can be used for a formalized speech/language, c) linguistics cannot, unanimously, decide which are varieties of a language & which are close but different languages (Urdu, Hindi, Swedish, Norwegian, Serbian, Croatian, Yiddish, German, Malaysian, Indonesian,..). d) it is false that anything re. Serbo-Croatist ideology is "sourced". Virtually no eminent world philologist & linguist from the 19th to the 21st C has contributed significantly to the knowledge of Croatian and Serbian languages -they, at most, wrote elementary goulash language primers; these "standardization institutions" are politicized institutions, because they, sometimes, offer "macro-language" for Croatian and Serbian- and, at the same time, there deny any "macro language" status for Hindi and Urdu. Be as it may- English Wikipedia will continue to be loathed by Croatian general public as some kind of ultra-leftist neo-Yugoslav megaphone; in real life, it will have- as it was the case- no bearing on the status & profile of the Croatian language, both in the "global world" & even less in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Wikipedia will have been used as a nice info source on many other issues, but in this case (as in many others connected with Yugoslav totalitarian state & its ideological cultural malformations)- as a worthless obsolete & obscurantist dogma clinging to the remnants of Serbo-Croatist ideology which is in practice dismissed & dumped throughout the world. Say, then- which is the name of that supposed name: BCS, BCSM or Serbo -Croatian or Croato-Serbian? Or, is is Serbian-Croatian (why not Croatian-Serbian? like in WALS: https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_scr )? It shows that even supposedly scientific institutions are no more than a joke. They don't even know what they're talking about. Such a "language" with "fluctuating" name doesn't exist anywhere in the modern world. Mir Harven (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Every article on Wikipedia is subject to consensus, it is one of the most basic policies of the encyclopedia: WP:CONSENSUS. If you do not understand or cannot abide by that, you should not be editing here.  --JBL (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a consensus of a clique that had been occupying that subject for well over a decade without trying to prove their point. Their "arguments" are both dogmatic & infantile. Consensus of a Politburo under Stalin is of the same weight as this one (I am not talking about other issues because I don't know about them, but I very well informed about this one). Anyway- this won't change anything. The article on Croatian is a lie (there are no Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja, Joakim Stulli, Mažuranić... in it); the article on Serbian is a lie (no one spoke "Serbian" in Dubrovnik); the article on Serbo-Croatian is a lie (no Croatian and Serbian literary monuments in the 1200s, 1400s or 1600s or the 1700s belonged to that fictive "language"). So- it is not just the case of historically rejected term (Serbo-Croatian) that did exist as a cover term for two languages (and could be treated as a historical phenomenon); it is the content  of that term which is completely absurd - to think that Vatican Croatian Prayer Book is an example of "History of the Serbo-Croatian language" -one must be a psycho case. So- it is not just that those three articles present absolutely false picture. They are, if any rational person looks at them, a good material for a serious examination of cognitive dissonance. Mir Harven (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the background here, and the comments in this thread, it appears to me that Mir Haven is a long-time SPA and POV editor, who is probably long overdue for a topic ban. That may be true for others involved here as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support a topic ban for Mir Harven, whose shrill polemics and repeated insults against anyone and anything disagreeing with their position suggest strongly that they are neither prepared nor willing to edit collaboratively. Since Alalch E. didn't specify, I would suggest that the ban be for all Balkan language topics, broadly construed, as well as all topics pertaining to Yugoslavia and republics formerly belonging to that nation. (It's probably not a good sign that nearly one in ten of every mainspace edit Mir Harven's made is to the Greater Serbia article, for instance, something that probably can stand scrutiny.)    Ravenswing      04:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just do it. English Wikipedia will only have cemented its irrelevance & uselessness re. this, and some similar topics. The same wiki editors' sources, after all, give contradictory & worthless answers: UNESCO: https://en.wal.unesco.org/search?keys=croatian (Croatian not spoken in Croatia?); https://en.wal.unesco.org/search?keys=serbo-croatian (Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist).As far as Glottologue, one gets a bunch of disinfo: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/croa1245 (Eastern Bosnian is not New Shtokavian; Eastern Herzegovinian is not a dialectal basis of modern Croatian, which doesn't have a dialectal basis at all, but is stylized around Western Štokavian; Eastern Herzegovinian (Serb and Montenegerin) is not being a part of it although it is lumped together with Western Neo-Štokavian (Croat and Bosniak) into generic term Neo-Štokavian Ijekavian; Slaveno-Molisano is Molisan-Croatian, as it is recorded in Italian atlases; Timok dialect is Torlak; Bunjevac doesn't exist, being just a Western Neo-Štokavian Ikavian & that name is not in use in dialectology). All in all- Glottolangue "classification", as presented here, is worthless. It doesn't differentiate between standard languages and dialects, and it wrongly describes dialects' names & characteristics. World Atlas for Linguistic Typology is another example of contradictions & confusion: there is Urdu language,https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_urd, Hindi language,https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_hin - but not Hindustani language (macro-language or whichever description), as presented in Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language. On the other hand, WALS, a supposedly eminent linguistic typology tool, doesn't have Serbian or Croatian- only some "language" named Serbian- Croatian (not Serbo-Croatian, nor bcsm): https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_scr. - but not separate Croatian and Serbian standard languages. This "Serbian-Croatian language" is described by obsolete grammars for beginners (in Serbian, for instance, classification of nouns is according to grammatical gender; in Croatian, it follows the rules for the 3-modes (i-, e-, -a declension types) of how nouns look like in genitive singular). To conclude: a) linguistics is not an exact science, but frequently political contradictory mess of (dis)info, following political trends. b) Glottologue, UNESCO atlases, World Atlas for Linguistic Typology, Ethnologue- these are all contradictory & tendentious institutions giving false & incoherent "answers". English Wiki editors are tendentious bureaucrats following amateur arbitrary/contradictory classifications & are unable to answer common sense questions, thus presenting false histories and descriptions of those languages' (Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian) development and the current state.There is a chance to edit Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian language pages, as well Serbo-Croatian ideological "language" page, but you missed it. And the result will be, thus, further collapse into irrelevance & misinformation no serious seeker after reliable data will find useful or correct. Mir Harven (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You must think exceedingly well of yourself if you think that you being sanctioned will cause Wikipedia to collapse into ruin.   Ravenswing     19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The name rang a bell, so I looked it up and found that we were dealing with Mir Harven here a month ago, something that went completely unnoticed. Since it was Vipz that reported him, and given that he has appeared more or less after the IP originally made the report, it is not unconscionable (but by no means a fact) that they're the same person on a revenge trip. Their talk page, as noted in the original report, contains plenty of (old) comments labelling other users or experts who disagree with him as "morons", "psychos", "sickos" and other niceties. While there may be a linguistic debate to be had here, this user seems to be a Croat nationalist SPA with an axe to grind and views far beyond the pale. The fact that this slipped under the radar for years shouldn't mean it gets to go unsanctioned. Ostalgia (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What a wonderful example of a commissary-snitch type of mind. Pavlik Morozov, I presume? 78.3.187.44 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry my dislike for racism and mindless abuse of editors hurts your feelings. I hope you can recover quickly. Ostalgia (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ostalgia: That, or WP:MEATPUPPETRY, probably organized on an external chat platform like Discord. Just like the one that reigned over Croatian Wikipedia in the 2010s (I recommend reading that article for better insight). –Vipz (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed Mir Harven for disruption (see block log for details). I express no opinion on whether any other user involved in this discussion should be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IP 78.3.187.44 is also Mir Harven, as other than his reply to me his only contribution was to edit Mir Harven's comment above. If only for consistency, should it not also be zapped for the same reasons + sockpuppetry? Ostalgia (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And given his ongoing rants on his talk page, he strikes me as someone courting removal of TPA as well.   Ravenswing     19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IP editor ranting about crypto-Jews
Example diff They're not actively editing right this second, but I thought it would be good to get some admin eyes on this in case they think immediate action is needed or if this is a known LTA. Squeakachu (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Their contributions go back several months on the /64 range. See Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:0:0:0:0/64. I can't make heads or tails of what they're trying to say, but their reference here to "Jewish mafia bosses" is concerning. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked the /64 range for three months. I have no idea if it's an LTA, but they've been editing like this for a very long time and the range has never been blocked until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a blocked user who used to go on about how Einstein was/wasn't Jewish? Is it possibly related? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This one's got a pretty distinctive style. Having reviewed and reverted a lot of their talkpage ramblings, I think they could have just as well been blocked for crimes against language.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS violation by User:William Allen Simpson
This, this, this, this and this all violate the canvassing policy.

I understand that Mr. Simpson is upset to see an emerging consensus to do away with his cherished policy, but I played by the rules and so should he. If he can make a convincing argument in favor of his preferred position, fine. But lashing out and mass-posting and pinging biased notices is not the solution. I did not forum-shop, I simply opened a discussion in the most appropriate place, without regard to where previous discussions may have occurred. — Biruitorul Talk 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I really wish we could stop obsessing about pigeonholing and labelling people by descent and ethnicity and get rid of these categories altogether, they cause nothing but edit wars and endless problems and presents the fiction who someone's parents or ancestors were is more important than who they are. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I really wish we could address the substance of my complaint here. — Biruitorul Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not that this is worth discussing here, but I would like to point out that this is not about the "pigeonholing" categories being especially cherished by me or by (though they do seem to have much support in the wikipedian community, and also do seem to have a purpose for at least some regions of the world); it is simply a fact that, if we are going to have them, we should at least have a consistent approach that is dictated by the sources, not an editorial decision guided by whims. You can either have all the categories mentioned by sources, or none at all; the current guideline is remarkably ludicrous in suggesting we should only have one. If there is any bias or preference on my part, it is one against whims, not for ethnic categories. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An editor who was not notified has appeared here. Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?
 * Right, because every editor who’s ever commented here has done so only by notification. Let’s focus on your canvassing behavior, Mr. Simpson, and leave aside the diversions. — Biruitorul Talk 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I may be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet (and a major creator of content when I'm not engaged by in absurd debates about his pet peeves, once they come to intersect with the content I create); then again, I may be a user who simply bothered to click on this rather public page and was drawn to comment here on a side topic brought up by . Dahn (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:ASPERSIONS. Strike your absurd comment. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:B195:BCE:2355:7AD9 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many editors visit ANI to keep track of disputes and weigh in on them. It is not unusual for unrelated individuals to chime in, and is in fact encouraged to get a broad consensus on the disputes in question. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken, but I think User:William Allen Simpson's response was likely a sardonic one, commenting about the fact that the two accusing him of canvassing, apparently didn't like the comments of another editor who showed up here. And so was sardonically commenting that it "must" be another attempt by him at another sort of collusion. I'm not saying whether that was appropriate or not, but just that's my impression of their comments. - jc37 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, let’s also talk about the WikiProject notifications. They begin harmlessly enough, but then go on with a lengthy paragraph about how I’m forum-shopping. Hardly the neutral announcement required by policy, is it? — Biruitorul Talk 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that I had never accused Mr Simpson of canvassing -- I noted that the accusation may have some merit, but did not endorse it myself, nor had anything to to with this ANI notification. I did read it, though, and I did comment on the side topic opened up by . I then proceeded to make a point about the egregious claim brought up against . Also do me the favor of noting that even in the categorization RfC that's being discussed here I expressed an opinion that is substantially different from what Biruitorul proposed, regarding what the standard of ethnic inclusion should be (which did not prevent one of the users invited in by from suggesting I am Biruitorul's sockpuppet). Anyway, I really do wish that both parties could stick to the point that's being discussed, here and anywhere else. Dahn (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Poe's Law is in full effect, so without an indicator, I really can't tell if someone is trying to be snarky anymore. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree and am sympathetic. If I had not seen more examples of his writing (he is a prolific CFD contributor, and has been for many years), I don't know that I could have guessed that either. - jc37 08:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This was WP:FORUMSHOPPING by definition. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Biruitorul's RfC was posted on a less frequently visited Talk page (nothing posted in 3 months) during a (currently active) discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17, where such matters are supposed to be decided. (See WP:RFCNOT.) This is one of a series of such discussions over a period of more than 4 months: (See Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 20.) Biruitorul failed to notify any of the current discussion participants nor any relevant projects. After belatedly discovering it serendipitously, I've notified the recent participants and other relevant Talk pages.
 * The complaint here is about you, Mr. Simpson. Your notifications were in no way in line with WP:CANVASS. Please stop diverting me discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions can be scrutinized here too. USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Scrutinize all you want. But while you scrutinize my actions, maybe also take a moment to scrutinize the actions of William Allen Simpson, if it isn’t asking too much. — Biruitorul Talk 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyone else feeling like handing out interaction bans and topic bans against both Biruitorul and William Allen Simpson and just being done with this nonsense? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what exactly am I guilty of here? I started an RfC, which I oversaw in the most civil, engaged manner possible. Then along comes William Allen Simpson who blasts me with some ridiculous charges, and canvasses his supporters. Sorry but I’m not the one in the wrong here. — Biruitorul Talk 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jayron32's solution sounds like an especially appealing one to me. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: what have I done wrong? — Biruitorul Talk 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope . What a horrible idea. The only thing it is going to gain is make you feel like you solved anything. How about either treating the topic at hand fully or not commenting at all? Sanctioning a more than a decade-long content writer out of laziness is not acceptable. This goes for too.  Super   Ψ   Dro  14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a bad idea, I came up with it. All bad ideas originate with me.  I'm an asshole, of course.  It shocks me that anyone listens to me at all.  Sorry all.  Carry on. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * has only had a marginal involvement with this topic, unlike, whose edits largely revolve around this issue, and this interpretation of policy, in a manner and at a pace that very few could even keep up with. Biruitorul had requested for a comment not on Mr Simpson's behavior, but simply on whether the guideline makes sense -- it was raised in an appropriate venue, and was actually more valid than many of Mr Simpson's edits, precisely because it asked for input for editors who (like himself) have not been generally involved in this issue, and have no entrenched position either way. To which Mr Simpson invoked claims of forum shopping, all the while calling in people whom he knows share his exact position as !voters. So what is Biruitorul even accused of? Dahn (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, William Allen Simpson should be cautioned that notifications should be worded neutrally. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I really don't understand how this blatant canvassing is going completely unnoticed. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * William Allen Simpson's lack of diffs when referring to CFD discussions made it challenging to identify where those pings came from. I think it was this one, and as there weren't any editors who disagreed with the proposed deletion, I'm assuming good faith that had there been, they would have been pinged too. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it should be noted that the CfD mentioned by Mr Simpson has in fact very little to do with the guideline that Biruitorul has brought under scrutiny -- we were not discussing the merits of categorizing by ethnicity and occupation (to clarify: I myself am agnostic on this issue -- though I have created some such categories, to the measure where they seemed to be validated by a long-standing practice, I do not object to them ultimately being folded into the larger ones, if this reflects consensus), but the notion that we should only categorize by one ethnicity. I'm not entirely sure that/if Mr Simpson's bringing in other editors who happened to vote his way on that CfD should count as canvassing, but I myself would be interested to know: (a) what other similar CfDs those same users have supported, in the plethora of like-minded CfDs started by Mr Simpson (so many in fact that it has become simply impossible to keep up with them); (b) why Mr Simpson thought the CfDs and this issue would be connected enough for those particular users to be called in. Dahn (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So what William Allen Simpson did was ping everyone from a CfD in which everyone supported them to an unrelated one? That is indeed canvassing. Though in the discussion that started this report some people that did not participate in the one you linked were pinged, so they must come from somewhere else. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do your homework: as noted above, that ping was to all participants of a series of related category discussions that week, both pro and con, who were not already notified. There was no need to ping any already present.
 * The first diff could be canvassing depending on if the people ping'd were only supportive editors from a prior discussion. You've not provided any evidence of that. The last diffs all appear to be notices of the discussion you created: the wording is not ideal (not neutral in tone). WAS does raise a good point about the venue you chose to start that discussion at being the venue with least participation seemingly. Did you make an additional notifications when you started that RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Answer (as there has been no other response yet): No, there were no notifications by the nominator to any of the related projects, nor to the village pump. They have admitted that they did no history search, and did not notify any prior contributors to the text (such as me). They have admitted relying on each others' contributions for WP:STEALTH coordination. WP:RFC was used as the basis for my notification choices.
 * @William Allen Simpson, do you have a diff for admitting to off-wiki coordination (WP:STEALTH)? And you have not addressed the non-neutral language of your notifications. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did notify the appropriate village pump. Notifying and then, as Mr. Simpson did, adding a “by the way, this RfC constitutes forum-shopping” is hardly the neutral announcement required by policy. — Biruitorul Talk 19:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

CoI editing by Ytrezq
See Talk:Ytrezq, where the contributor (or contributors, there seems to be so,e suggestion that multiple people are using the account) makes it clear that they have a CoI regarding 'Tornado Cash' a 'cryptocurrency tumbler'. Having failed to get the article revised to suit their CoI interests, due to a lack of any independent RS, they have now been arguing at Village pump (policy) that we should change core policy regarding the permissibility of otherwise-unsourced primary-source blockchain data (in their own words "logged events ; transactions ; and/or addresses"). And while arguing for a change in policy while having a CoI isn't in of itself a violation of policy, they have repeatedly, despite being told not to several times, posted while logged out (clearly inappropriate while having a CoI). Given that it was obvious that the discussion wasn't going anywhere, and that they were spamming the discussion with unnecessary and confusing details about the minutiae of the data they were trying to include, I boldly hatted it. Ytrezq has now reverted my hatting, with an edit summary which (if it makes sense at all) seems to be trying to justify the logged-out posting on the basis that "I don’t scrunity from them because I robbed them in 2021". I can only conclude that a WP:NOTHERE block would be appropriate, on the basis that Wikipedia is neither a platform for confessing to crimes, nor for trying to cover them up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed and logged. Yet another long dormant account come out of the woodwork to make a mess on crypto stuff. Courcelles (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstrone: baseless accusations

 * Context

User:Arkenstrone has been POV-pushing since the beginning of April at articles Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God. I recently removed their POV-pushing. The user opposed this removal, so I reverted their revert and tried to explain to the user that random blogs and reading clubs' websites and the likes were not reliable and why information had to be removed along with refs, but the user WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stated they wanted to create a FALSEBALANCE between what they deem "pro-Valtorta" and "anti-Valtorta" points.

Then, Arkenstrone's versions on both articles were revdeleted for copyright violation, part of which was due to me asking Diannaa to check them after their revdeletion at 'Maria Valtorta'. The user asked Diannaa for the revdeleted content, when Dianaa refused Arkenstrone stated: I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. The user then went to ask 3 other admins to get an e-mail of the deleted versions (links to threads): Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and DatGuy. The user has stated that all three were chosen because they had imposed sanctions upon me in the past (I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour [...] I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request), a reason the user has double-down on (on Deepfriedokra's talk page, admin Anachronist characterised Arkenstrone's behaviour as a blatant demonstration of WP:Admin shopping). By the way, the admin shopping worked with the last admin.


 * Accusations

The user has portrayed my behaviour as disruption or vandalism without any basis, thus violating No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"). They have also consistently characterised my removal of their POV as "gutting" the articles. This is the the user's last remark to me that made me write this ANI, and I have updated the writing with DatGuy's recent acceptation of e-mailing the copyrighted material.


 * The user gave me bogus warnings, also stating they reverted my reversion of my disruptive edits. I asked the user to stop their baseless accusations, otherwise I would go to ANI. To which they responded by giving me more bogus warnings. They have also attacked me on 3 admins' talk pages.


 * At User talk:Diannaa: This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive; the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive; this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article.


 * At User talk:Bbb23: they state I have a long history of WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:VANDALIZE, and they ask that I be blocked for serial disruptive edits and vandalism: this is not true, I have never been blocked for vandalism and my removal is not disruptive nor vandalism.


 * At User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2023/April: I didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function, me asking Diannaa to check for copyvio is a sort of gaming of the editing process, and I have been attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process.

Sidenote unrelated to me: Arkenstrone has also characterised Diannaa's refusal of handing their revdeleted versions as well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The admins involved in this discussion already came to a resolution. User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2023/April Arkenstrone (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a completely different issue, as DatGuy has told you at the very talk page you link. Veverve (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If  Arkenstrone had stuck to the subject of getting back their content, that would have been great. But they personalized the conflict with Veverve and specifically sought out admins who'd sanctioned Veverve in the past. Me included. I'll leave it to y'all to decide what to make of this. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing some important facts. Allow me to correct the record.
 * Bbb23 was the first admin I contacted after Diannaa, asking him for 1) a copy of the deleted revision and 2) to assist, and possibly block Veverve since he was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). That's not how things are done. You bring it up on the talk page, and if a source is indeed low quality, then tag the sourced text with "citation needed" or similar, and give other editors a chance to provide better sources. That's good-faith.
 * Bbb23 didn't want to have anything to do with it. So I respected his wish not to get involved and left it at that. Afterwards, I decided to focus on just getting access to the deleted revision and not confuse things with conduct issues. I made no mention of Veverve, on any other admin's talk page, including DatGuy's or yours.
 * It was Veverve that decided to make his presence known on DatGuy's talk page. Only then did I respond to his confused and deflecting statements, and provided the facts of his past bad behaviour, which was happening once again. I wasn't going to mention his past behaviour in that thread, deciding instead to give the editing process a chance to function, and see what happens.
 * Only after DatGuy recommended to introduce material from the deleted revision with copyvio corrections + source improvement (slowly), did Veverve choose to file this frivolous ANI. I would advise Veverve to consider WP:BOOMERANG. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Baseless accusations?
 * Patterns of questionable conduct: 1) gutting articles WP:VANDALIZE, 2) disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT, and 3) edit warring WP:3RR. At least 5 blocks have been levied and one Arbitration Enforcement Sanction. The facts speak for themselves (below). This editor doesn't seem to be getting the message. Before opening a frivolous ANI, perhaps he should consider WP:BOOMERANG.
 * 1. Edit Warring: Block:
 * => "You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING."
 * 2. Edit Warring Block:
 * => "You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this?"
 * => "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring."
 * 3. Edit Warring & Block:
 * => "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended."
 * 4. Block Extension:
 * => "I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options."
 * 5. Edit Warring & Block:
 * => "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church."
 * 6. Arbitration Enforcement Sanction:
 * => "The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned "
 * 7. Disruptve Edits:
 * => in progress Arkenstrone (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to have completely missed the point. And you double-down on calling my edits Disruptve Edits (using your own warnings as proofs), accusing me of having vandalised (which I never did, you do not appear to understand the meaning of this term on WP), and baselessly state that I was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). I never denied receiving blocks or being topic-banned. That none of the three admins to which you mentioned my behaviour were willing to sanction me should have made you realise your accusations were baseless.
 * That you decided to make it personnal and continued to baselessly accuse me once I intervened on DatGuy's talk page, or on whatever page, is not a defence at all: it only proves you have trouble working on a community project. And as I said, I had decided to start this ANI once you confirmed that you were clearly unwilling to give me the time of the day.
 * You admitted you decided to ask specific admins that sanctionned me in your admin shopping. Veverve (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (comment so that it does not get archived before an admin has fixed the problem) Veverve (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but I would recommend an interaction ban between the two editors. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III
After discussion with other invovled parties, and with their mild to strong support, I come here to request an intervention of sorts at Talk:Charles III.

A task force was formed with the goal of getting Charles III to GA status ahead of Charles' coronation (6 May 2023). Extensive work was done on the article over the ensuing couple of months along with, unsurprisingly, extensive discussion. Despite some friction, all points of confusion or disagreement were sorted out. That is, except for one: how to inform readers about where Charles is king of. This has dragged on for at least a month now and remains unresolved. WP:3O was tried (twice) and declined (twice). WP:DRN was tried and declined.

Some of us who are involved feel the root of the problem lies with a few editors (though, there's one stand-out) not following the WP:BRD process. I believe the best and fastest way to get an understanding of the situation as it's morphed over weeks is to simply skim through these talk sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and the article's edit history, looking specifically for edits to the "Accession and coronation plans" section.

However, as the instructions at the top of this noticeboard require diffs, here's what's only still just a sample:


 * not engaging in consensus building by


 * insisting on keeping a current version (12345)


 * repeating the same argument (123), despite edits taking the argument into account (1234 56)


 * disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits (cmt., no resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., no resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., no resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., resp. | cmt., cmt, resp. | cmt., resp.)


 * deflecting to irrelevant discussions on different topics (123) despite explanations of the lack of connection (1234) and with non-sequitur (12)


 * moving the goalposts (resp., cmt., resp. | resp., cmt., cmt., resp.)


 * the sole clear and to-the-point response from the main antagonist amounting to "I don't like it"


 * mischaracterizations of other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable and improper (1234)


 * cherry-picking only RfCs as valid (1234567891011), willfully ignoring the validity of BRD,


 * trying to scuttle dispute resolution (123)


 * continually insisting on waiting for other editors' input (123456) and on a need to convince other editors (1)


 * edit warring by reverting (1234567) without engaging at talk beyond two comments to accuse editors of bad faith (12) and two non-sequiturs (linked above)


 * misusing consensus (12) and misrepresenting the truth about reverts (123) to disguise it


 * gaslighting (12345)


 * and a and a personal attack, just to round things out.

I understand that my understanding of policy isn't perfect and that the above is my personal assessment of the situation. It seems to align with others' take on the problem; however, I realize this will nonetheless differ from how other others view the state of affairs. Additionally, I'm aware that not all, if any, of those involved, including myself, have been saints; I don't expect to be cannonized as St Mies of Wikipedia any time soon. I accept that, by posting this, I'm opening my own words and actions up for scrutiny and I accept whatever consequenses may come. A final resolution to the dispute is the primary objective above all others. Someone has volunteered to do a GA review of the article beginning at the end of the week (13 May) and we'd like to have the article meeting basics like WP:LEDE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY as soon as possible. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that 3O and DRN was declined, but what's the reason an RfC hasn't been requested if the discussion has reached an impasse? That seems like the most straightforward solution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There 'is' an RFC ongoing, concerning the "Accession and Coronation" sub-section lead :) GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * * There is a fundamentally misleading RfC ongoing concerning the "Accession and coronation" section. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We disagree, which is allowed on the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a straw man; one that once again foundationally misunderstands the disagreement. I said nothing about what is and isn't allowed on "the 'pedia". I said the RfC you started fundamentally misrepresents the dispute over the "Accession and coronation" section of the article and is therefore pointless and a cause of confusion. But, you may well be starting to show here, in real time, what one of the main impediments to resolving the dispute has been. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC doesn't misrepresent the dispute-in-question. We're dealing with a content dispute & nothing more. Administrator advised you about WP:CIVIL. I hope you'll follow Tamzin's advice. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all that needs said about the RfC you opened: . As to the rest: consider carefully whether or not you really want to start making personal pot-shots by dragging up past interactions with admins. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At Charles III's talkpage & your own talkpage, I've been attacked several times & other editors advised you (concerning your talkpage) to stop. Now, please let others give their input 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone's free to look at my history and logs as they are to look at yours. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Including your G2bambino contribs & posts? That's good to know. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It says right on my userpage that that's my old account; 15 years ago. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I sampled a dozen or so diffs in your report and don't see anything egregious, or necessarily matching your characterization of the edits. An RFC on the lede sentence is already ongoing; why not let it reach a conclusion? And maintaining the status quo is routine when a topic is under discussion; in this case the argument for doing so is particularly strong given that there is currently considerable support at the RFC for the existing language. I realize that lengthy discussions can be frustrating but in this case the frustration may have been worsened by the highly optimistic expectations (as too observed) that all the disputes would be settled and GA review complete by the time of the coronation. Even the current goal of starting the GA review by the end of the week seems implausible since RFC often run for a month. I'd suggest just stepping back a bit and letting the arguments play out. Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To the diffs: As I noted, all above are still only a sample. More than a sample of a sample is likely necessary to get a solid understanding of what's gone on and what the problem/problems are. Wrapped up in that is confusion over the relevance of the RfC on the lede: the RfC is not at all relevant to the unresolved dispute. The RfC is on the article's opening sentence. The dispute is over an addition to the article body; specifically, the "Accession and coronation" section. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

At this very moment. There are two RFCs-in-progress at the Charles III page. Each were started by a different editor. RFCs are a better route to take, then having one or more editors ending up getting blocked for edit-warring. FWIW - WP:ANI, isn't the place to settle content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first RfC has no relevance to the dispute; that is outlined in the opening summary/evaluation of the dispute above. The second RfC was opened by GoodDay and is an added distraction in an already complicated mess, as it fundamentally misrepresents the dispute. If even only to avoid any more confusion, both RfCs should be immediately closed; the first one is all but over, anyway. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The second RFC was opened, to avoid edit-warring & help bring stability to the page. Requesting the input of other editors is the best way to break any impasse. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is merely futher illustration of what I outlined in the OP: "repeating the same argument", "disregarding other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits", "continually insisting on waiting for other editors' input" after other editors have given their input, "cherry-picking only RfCs as valid, willfully ignoring the validity of BRD", and so on. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I must now 'request', that you stop with the personal attacks. As for BRD, the onus is on the editor who makes the bold changes. Bold changes, that are already made known to be contentious, aren't very helpful. But we 'two' have said more then enough. At least let the other pinged editors (let alone outsiders) have a chance to give their input. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Responding to the ping above, it's true that I warned Mies for personal attacks against GD back in July. That was about inappropriate speculation about GD's mental health, and I'm not seeing anything like that here, or really anything I'd call personal attacks—not to say that Mies' comments are brimming with civility and AGF. It looks here like we have two experienced editors who have become very frustrated with each other. I'd suggest you both step back from this thread and give it some breathing room for other editors to comment. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. (And, for the record, I was embarrassed when I recently looked back at that comment. I don't know what I was thinking when I made it; I wasn't in a great headspace myself around that time. But, still... I'd make no fulminations if it were permanently deleted for all time.) -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Responding to the notification: I've dipped in and out of this at the article. FWIW, I'm surprised this has made it to ANI. Sure, there's some sub-optimal things going on (a surfeit of RfCs for one) and there's plenty of bickering and fractiousness, and very little WP:STICK being dropped. A few editors could do with stepping away from it all and calming down. But I would say it's rather a storm in a teacup. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been notified of this discussion, but I don't think that any of my own edits require any sort of response. This thread looks like forum shopping. The requests for comment will close with decisions that the opening party disagrees with. His complaint was rejected at third opinion; it was then rejected at the dispute resolution noticeboard; and so now he brings it to the administrators' noticeboard with a collection of edits that on the whole appear better than his own behaviour. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd echo DeCausa here, bringing this content dispute to ANI, and casting aspersions against the other party in the dispute to boot, is not a good look. Suggest this thread be withdrawn and the parties concentrate on resolving the remaining issues. I was somewhat involved in this page a while back, as I objected to the attempt by the "task force" mentioned above to seize WP:OWNership of the page and enforce their wording tweaks, which were a mix of good, bad and neutral, bypassing consensus on the article talk page. By and large a lot of those issues have been amicably resolved now though, and the priority is to address the remaining ones rather than attempting to get opponents sanctioned. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation: there was no "WP:OWNERship" from the task force. You were invited to CIII on your own talkpage, and you were pinged twice. There was an RfC on the matter too - very far from CIII trying to "enforce" changes (changes which have improved the article) that were proposed there.Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * My concern here, after reading the talk page, is that the conversation is being dominated by only a few voices. My feeling is that there's probably too much contribution in general, and that their points on any putative changes to the article, in either direction, have already been made sufficiently.  I'd like to see everyone who is dominating the conversation agree to voluntarily step back and let other voices get heard, and abide by what others have to contribute as well.  I don't want admins to have to step in here, because the tools we have to do so (IBANS, TBANS, page blocks, etc.) seem much less desirable than people just doing the right thing.  But when I see a talk page like this, and the same 3-4 names come up more than 4-5 dozen times, AND where those names are doing classic WP:BLUDGEON behavior, that's something that needs to be addressed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I take your point about too few voices; that's central to why I went to WP:3O (even though there was, at the time, four people involved, I thought the principle was the same: two sides locked in a stalemate) and to WP:DRN: they were calls for fresh input. (I believe I said as much in my requests.) Even one of, if not the, main motivations for coming here was to get a break in the logjam (without having to go through one or more RfCs just on how to word an RfC, since not everyone involved can even agree on that--see above). And, in that vein, I'm not in opposition to the suggestion that everyone so far involved step back. However, is the core problem not necessarily that everyone's made their points already (putting aside the matter of how they've made them), but, rather, that even after everyone's points have been made, listened to, and taken into account when composing edits (trying, over time, at least 123 45 variations), the result is never deemed good enough and reverted on sight? I think I summed up the situation in the first half of this comment I made (plus addendum) not long before coming here. While one "side" (which there shouldn't be; but, here we are) shows attentiveness and flexibility, the other just demands one thing and will accept nothing else unless it's forced on them by numbers alone. Is that take on the matter at hand an unrealistic one? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  15:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . All are welcomed, to give their input in the RFC-in-question. More input there, means a stronger consensus, for what to put into the lead of the "Accession and coronation" sub-section :) GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mies and GD: The problem is that once you've made your feelings heard on a topic, there's no inherent need to make them heard again. If someone has a different perspective, you don't need to restate your perspective after them every time; you also don't need to respond to or disagree with everyone that comes along who has a different perspective.  That kind of domination of the talk page can be seen as disruptive when it reaches levels I am seeing here.  Instead of doing that, just make your point once, and let other people chime in without arguing with them every time.  Your point was already made, it doesn't need to be made 30 times.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All good and reasonable... If the reality were that both sides obstinately refused to listen to one another.


 * But, what really transpired was only one side a) made efforts to get the others to express their feelings, b) heard whatever feelings were expressed, and c) accomodated those feelings in edits to the article. The last try is just one proof. Only one side showed total disregard for the other's expressed feelings, blanket reverted every edit, and repeated themselves. The proof is all through the discussions and the article edit history.


 * I'm not the only one to have identified that as the real point where BRD kept completely breaking down and progress became impossible. Even the RfC on the "Accession and coronation" section asks the wrong question and the voiced objections were, of course, completely ignored and remain ignored up to this minute.


 * The proof of other people chiming in is also there, as is the proof of their expressed feelings being disregarded by the "status quo" side. The proof is there of attempts to get still more people to chime in. This is an attempt to get more people to chime in.


 * But, on that note, I'm going to leave this until we hear from those who suggested going to AN/I and/or with whom I discussed going to AN/I before starting this section, should they choose to contribute (or, in one case, contribute any further). They were all duly notifed. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The Original Poster filed a request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard a week ago. As Abecedare notes, I declined the request because there was already an RFC open, and noted that In Wikipedia, there is no deadline, but that User:Miesianiacal seemed to be in a hurry, and was trying to rush things.  I advised them that they should report disruption of the RFC at WP:ANI.  This report does not seem to be about disruption of the RFC.  It seems to be, again, about the filing party being in a hurry.  This report refers to declining the DRN as attempting to scuttle dispute resolution, but dispute resolution was already proceeding via the RFC, and it is trying to bypass the RFC that is disruptive.  The Original Poster still seems to be forum shopping to try to rush Good Article review.
 * Trout can be caught in British Isles waters. I think that one is in order for the Original Poster.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained to you previously, the RfC has no relevance to the dispute for which dispute resolution was being sought. Further, I did not make any claim that your decline was a scuttling of dispute resolution. In fact, we discussed the decline quite civilly. Please check the diffs again. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see an issue here other than impatience from an editor. Nemov (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ban Miesianiacal from Charles III/Talk:Charles III. There is something ironic about Miesianiacal composing long replies to Jayron32's request to take a break from the discussion. It demonstrates the real problem here which is Miesianiacal's tendentious editing and bludgeoning of any discussion. DrKay (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet a scan of Talk:Charles III reveals that Miesianical is only the third highest contributor to that page, so if we're talking bludgeoning then we need also to be looking at User:GoodDay and User:109.etc. Black Kite (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That other people also behave badly doesn't give a free pass here. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Topic ban Miesianiacal from Charles III. As I implied above, he's exhausting everyone's patience by insisting on rehashing the same issues and discussion over and over. If his wording or arguments are rejected in one place, he immediately starts trying to put them somewhere else. I think the task force will find itself able to move forward far more easily without his input. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't help thinking that one smacks a little of WP:OWN, I'm afraid (also see my reply to DrKay above). Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your reply, but it's not just a question of the amount of text added and the number of edits. It's also the forum shopping (this is the umpteenth discussion of the same issue), editing to promote a particular point of view (Canadian nationalist), and the tone of the contributions (he's been warned for civility at least 5 times by 5 different editors in the last year alone). Celia Homeford (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * - Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here: if not, an admin can remove this. I started the task force after a discussion on Charles's talkpage. There wasn't much friction on the TF itself; only some minor disagreements over content that we managed to settle. We then held an RfC on whether to proceed with the discussed changes: we made the changes, with little opposition (there was disagreement on how to proceed with the RfC, but that was a procedural issue rather than a content one). A while later, the RfC on the "Commonwealth realms" sentence started. Everyone presented their opinions, but this is where things started to fracture a bit, with some heated comments being made (not so much on Charles's talk, but on the "User talk" namespace). I'm not going to pretend like I was a model editor (because I'm not), but there might have been a bit of bludgeoning; however, I don't think the bludgeoning was as bad as some above are making it out to be. It's obviously a contentious area, but compared to other such areas on WP, there was very little actual edit warring. I disagreed with Miesianiacal and 109 on the matter of the first sentence, and I agreed with GoodDay that it should be left as it is, and said that we should compromise by giving a partial list in the "Accession and coronation" section instead. Even with that considered, I don't think that Mies or GoodDay (or 109, for that matter) should be at all TBANned from Charles III. I think instead that admins should simply advise involved parties to take a break from the article and the TP and to cool off without TBANs being applied; it would be a shame to have to apply the banhammer, when they have done a lot to improve the article. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-communicative genre-warrior not listening to repeated warnings
User:Tom O'Meara came to my attention tonight making an edit to Frankie Muniz which went against an emerging talk page consensus. I went to their talk page to attempt to get them to join the discussion. However, the long list of repeated warnings, particularly for genre-warring and adding unsourced content concerned me. I am further concerned by their lack of ENGAGEment in talk discussions. They have zero edits to talkspace and two edits to user_talkspace in four-and-a-half years on the project. They have recently ignored a warning for genre-warning placed by on May 9, and genre-warred at Tarkan (singer) and Fiki without adding any sources in the same session as the edit to Frankie Muniz. Perhaps we need a pblock from mainspace to get them to communicate? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Pixie Lott edits are bizarre, to say the least. He supplies a reliable source, but that source describes Lott as "soul-pop" (which genre he removes). In the interview, Lott self-describes her music as soul (which genre he adds) but also as dance (which he removes).  The Muniz edits are just disruptive.  The uncommunicativeness may be due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (although that's less likely these days) but there are very few edit-summaries either. I'd agree with a mainspace pblock to gain attention. Black Kite (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He has made a post to my talk page attempting to explain the Frankie Muniz edit (which to clarify, is not at all why I'm here, that article is a separate issue which is nowhere near the level of admin intervention yet) but made another unsourced edit to a BLP, adding "...and stage actress" to the lead of Melody Thornton, which honestly is the same type of behaviour as the Muniz edit; adding something to the lead without regard for MOS:ROLEBIO and without any talk discussion. I've advised them in my reply to come here and that they should make posts like the one on my talk page more often, but before making these types of changes. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Could describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page constitute a WP:BLPVIO?
Interesting in administrators' views on whether describing a professor as a "notoriously partisan source" in an edit comment or talk page could constitute a WP:BLPVIO? Assuming of course that no WP:RS exist to support this claim.

This came up on a page recently, but I am not linking to it so as to avoid getting distracted with the specifics of that situation. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Diff? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 07:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do I need to provide it? I was hoping to get a conceptual answer. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the conceptual answer would be "It depends". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPTALK: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. In other words, "It depends". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Diff is here: USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 08:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that this is a BLP violation - certainly not an unambiguous one. Firstly, per the policy Hawkeye7 cited, the claim is explicitly related to making a content decision: the claim that the source is partisan is supporting the argument that the text should not be included in the lead.  Secondly, it's not obviously a claim about a living person: at least from that edit summary, it is unclear to me whether the alleged notorious partisanship is on the part of the author, the publisher, or just that particular book. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I have notified of this discussion, as it is their edit at issue Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both lead authors for that source have been dead longer than five years Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source in question is that by Nur Masalha, so still alive unless there is some very recent news. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh gotcha I thought it was the one by Raban and Holum. Folly Mox (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is a book on archaeological research into a 2,000-year-old site being cited for a comment on the establishment of Israel in 1948? And why does this belong in the lede anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't anymore, so concerns allayed. But it was in connection to the site's alternative names. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see what it was being cited for. What I'd like to know though is why the book was being cited for something so clearly tangential to its actual topic. Though I suspect I know the answer already. Evidently no article that discusses anything remotely relating to the eastern end of the Mediterranean can ever be free of cherry-picking, point-scoring, and miscellaneous partisan off-topic-ramblings. Sad. Just sad... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was point-scoring, the point being scored was pretty subtle. More just matter-of-fact. But the dispute itself arose over the attempts to rip down a perfectly viable scholarly source over accusations of partisanship, which, well, applies to half the scholars in the arena. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its a notoriously partisan topic area. Which rather suggest that the edit summary in question isn't something we should be overly concerned over. Scholars routinely say worse things about each other, and most are thick-skinned enough not to worry about passing comments in Wikipedia edit summaries. At least I assume so, because otherwise they aren't going to last long while engaging with such topics. Crying 'WP:BLP' in such circumstances would seem overblown, even if the discussion wasn't about content that quite possibly shouldn't have been there in the first place. Edit summaries are just that, and it isn't reasonable to expect a long treatise in justification for any negative commentary on an edit. Without establishing there was some sort of pattern, or unless something a lot more specific was being alleged, contributors should be permitted to use edit summaries for what they are intended for - which very often includes expressing an opinion on the merits of a source. Opinions informed by policy, but opinions nevertheless. Editorial judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not unduly offensive, just needlessly and unfoundedly so. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say, in the end, it's better to allow something like this on a talk page than to have people unable to, for example, say Andrew Wakefield or Alex Jones or Hulda Clark or (contemporaneously to the first Iraqi war, anyway) Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf is a notoriously unreliable source. Because dicussion of the partisianness and reliability of an author is a key part of writing an article. We can certainly say that, had that opinion been put in an article without some hefty citations, then it'd be a bad BLP violation, but BLP is not meant to keep us from criticising a source because of the creator just because the author is alive. Otherwise WP:FRINGE starts to break down.
 * If they're wrong, they're wrong. And people will tell them they are. But being wrong isn't a blockable offense ("Competence is required" issues aside) and the encyclopedia breaks down if we block people from discussing sources. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 11:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Questioning the reliability of a source text should not be seen as a verboten BLP violation; otherwise people could add sources written by any living person, and no one could ever say anything bad about the source or raise any objections to its use. That's obviously silly.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This question belongs at WP:BLPN, not ANI. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 12:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a BLP violation. The exception for related to making content choices is blanket and absolute; no talk page statement made in a good-faith effort to contribute to content choices can ever be a BLP violation, fullstop, even if a consensus eventually forms that you're wrong. This is important because if it was possible to get sanctioned simply for being wrong about eg. whether someone is a "notoriously partisan source", it would have a chilling effect on people bringing up potential flaws with sources; and we need people to be willing to state potential flaws clearly. Now, if someone is clearly not bringing something up in good faith, then that's different, but we do need to be able to eg. discuss potential BLP-violating things on talk in order to decide whether or how to cover them, which means that the exemption for discussions related to making content choices has to cover basically everything that is said in good faith towards that end. How could we ever resolve BLP disputes if the people who believe there's a BLP problem somewhere could immediately remove everything the people on the other side of the dispute say about the matter on talk? --Aquillion (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocking of user STVbastian
The user have not talking to me in a very nice tone. just because I told nicely that Hanoi is a state in Vietnam but the user try to correct me in a point like I don't even know that Hanoi is not a state in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.63.217 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ...What? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 219.74.63.217 - you are required to notify STVbastian of your post here. I have done it. Meanwhile, from what I can see, STVbastian had carefully and politely explained why they reverted your changes and you had politely responded . At no point was there any reason I can see for you to delete their message and come here calling for them to be blocked. Regardless, there are links at the top of this page which give advice on the best way forward.  Dorsetonian (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by BoeingEngineer on JL-3


On May 5, (according to WHOIS, registered to the Boeing Company) made the following edit ; it was reverted by another user (Special:Diff/1153375377), restored by BoeingEngineer (Special:Diff/1153607485), and reverted again by me because the edit did have a number of problems (Special:Diff/1153616753.) Right after that (on May 7), I undertook a revision of the article that, among other things, incorporated elements of the reverted edits where I thought it would be appropriate (.)

Starting on May 7, BoeingEngineer (plus IPs in the same geographical area) began making this edit to the infobox, and since that time we've been reverting and restoring that edit daily. I gave a more comprehensive reasoning for the revert in an edit comment on May 8 (Special:Diff/1153776647.) I then tried to start a discussion on the talk page on May 12 followed by an explicit notification on BoeingEngineer's talk page on May 13 (Special:Diff/1154661507.) BoeingEngineer has ignored the invitation, and in general failed to address any of the points I have raised.

BoeingEngineer seems wedded to the idea that just because a source is available it can be used regardless of reliability or utility (in the original May 5 edit, both were an issue; after that mainly the latter.) They also do not understand the difference between vandalism and content disputes (Special:Diff/1153775132, Special:Diff/1154244664.) These qualities do not give me confidence that a resolution through discussion is feasible. (This is reinforced by my strong suspicion that BoeingEngineer is an WP:EVADEr based on behaviour like the above; at this point I am still willing to humor them.) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Admin.
 * RovingPersonalityConstruct keeps removing sourced materials and his reason was that the source was not reliable. Yet he failed to come up with any new and reliable sources himself.
 * The source I provided is highly reliable and up to date.
 * Please stop his disputative edit on the JL-3 page. BoeingEngineer (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indefinitely blocked BoeingEngineer and blocked Special:contributions/130.76.24.16/28 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't this discussion be closed? Looks like it's over. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible hoax


Per comments at Commons, and at WP:BLPN there seem to be reasonable grounds to suspect that User:Ali Nizari has for some time been adding hoax (or at minimum, entirely unsourced) content regarding a supposed 'dynasty' to the Punial state article, including unsourced claims about a living individual being a 'Crown Prince'. After the BLPN comment, I reverted the article to an earlier version, without this content, and left a note on Ali Nizari's talk page. This seems to have had no effect however, as Ali Nizari restored the unsourced content. At minimum, I think this contributor needs to be page-blocked until we get proper communication, and some reliably-sourced evidence that this supposed 'Prince' exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I particularly admire that this grand dynasty waited until the modern era and the advent of Microsoft Paint before creating their official flag, File:The Imperial Coat Of Arms of the Punial State.jpg. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If they want to offer some explanation, they can post an unblock request. But their failure to respond to the BLPN discussion before restoring all their unsourced edits is enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page
Blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1eetalk 09:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have revoked talk-page access. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

IP editor vandalizing articles by putting his real name in infoboxes
A user has been using two IP addresses, 2404:3C00:C04E:CE40:1C29:B6FA:CB4E:94CF and 2404:3C00:C04E:CE40:5C55:35E5:E21:FA38, to vandalize multiple political articles by putting his real full (searchable) name on the articles' infoboxes. The vandalism has since stopped but I'm wondering if this might have any implications due to the use of a person's full name in the multiple counts of vandalism involved. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to give notice to people who have been reported to AN/I, which you didn't do; I've done this for you. I highly doubt that "Christian Luigi A. Escamis", which both IPs have been adding information about even exists, as I cannot find anything that suggests this person exists. Sources that they have used are a | random campaign ad to claim that this person supports Ron DeSantis and | a Roblox YouTuber that hasn't been active in five years to claim that they support Marianne Williamson. If you look at their edit histories, they contradict themselves repeatedly.
 * I believe these IP ranges should be blocked for a month for spreading a blatant hoax. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 23:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s not vandalism if the IP doesn’t know he’s making a mistake. Maybe some edits are intentionally malicious but several I spot checked looked iffy (officeholder changes) or undesirable (personal endorsements of candidates) but not obviously malicious.


 * This person may just be new.


 * For now, I don’t think he has gotten any talk page feedback.


 * For starters, I suggest you leave him a nice message (on each page)welcoming him to Wikipedia and pointing him to the WP:5PILLARS. Explain that he cannot make edits that involve a COI but he can leave a suggestion on an article’s talk page for others to consider.


 * Also, for those personnel changes in Philippine political parties, he needs to provide a reliable source per WP:RS. If he doesn’t know how to do an inline citation, he can just do a raw external link in brackets for now.


 * Thanks for your vigilance!
 * —23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Range blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Civility and claims of harassment by User:Solaire the knight
As I'm repeatedly being accused of targeted harassment, protecting vandals, and having a conflict of interest (among other things) by User:Solaire the knight I thought to bring this here for resolution.

This started when I as an uninvolved editor noticed Solaire and an IP editor edit warring in a article and, after giving a warning, reported them both to the 3RR-noticeboard resulting in them both getting blocked for a short duration. After this Solaire's behavior became very WP:UNCIVIL with him claiming to everyone who would listen that I am harassing them, protecting vandals , and have a conflict of interest. I have tried asking them to stop, but this is becoming rather tiresome. Solaire fails to assume good faith, posts personal attacks and/or WP:ASPERSIONS, and is generally uncivil so some administrative action might be warranted. Thanks, CandyScythe (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After looking through the evidence it is obvious that User:Solaire the knight needs to stop harassing you. Solaire has been blocked twice in the last 2 months for edit warring and needs to either engage in civil conduct or be blocked again. I'm going to give them one final warning to stop the harassment of CandyScythe or else they will be facing a longer-term block.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that such things need to be discussed with both sides before making any decisions. Not to mention that the 3 undo rule has nothing to do with forum rules. I even close my eyes to the fact that the user continues to harass me, interfering with my conflicts with other users and insistently demanding my blocking. I'm used to the rules here being applied arbitrarily. But I'm already tired of it. I have already explicitly written that I am going to ignore any user comments addressed to me and will insist that we are prohibited from commenting on each other's actions. What else do you need? Solaire the knight (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , what is needed is for you to stop edit warring anywhere on Wikipedia, stop making false accusations of harassment and conflicts of interest, stop assuming bad faith of other editors, and start listening to the input of your colleagues instead of ignoring them. This is a collaborative project, after all. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit warning would simply not exist if the page were protected from anonymous edits, as I originally requested (and I'm not even talking about the last one, where a group of users just shared cancellations among themselves to get me banned). Moreover, it has already been protected in the past. But since everyone ignored this, we will close the topic. I have been on Wikipedia since 2008 and I know perfectly well what kind of project this is. But I am also a living person and I clearly do not like it when a completely outsider intervenes in a conflict that is not related to it in any way and, without any study of the situation, achieves my blocking. And then, with the most "innocent" look, he writes to me that "he understands why I'm upset." After that, having received an expectedly annoyed answer from me, he again begins to complain to the administrators. And doing it in a thread where I have a heated argument with another administrator because of the blocking caused by him (that is, getting into my next conflict and doing it actually right before my eyes). Even if the user does not have bad intentions and sincerely does not understand the reasons for my negative attitude towards him, this is just passive-aggressive. Especially when I am subsequently warned for a dispute without my participation, simply on the basis of his complaint. Collaboration project, huh (not to mention, the request to offer good faith seems rather ironic under the request where another user asks not to assume good faith from me)? In any case, I do not see any further reason to discuss this after my intentional refusal of any contact with the user. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , violating the edit warring policy is never justified in any circumstance. You should know that very well because you have been blocked for edit warring. We do not semi-protect articles to prevent IPs from editing. There must be a much better reason. Do not call a fellow editor a "complete outsider" because this is the encyclopedia that anyone who follows policies and guidelines can edit. You have no right to exclude editors you believe are "outsiders" from editing. In conclusion, I am very concerned about your disruptive attitude. As you already know, 15 years of experience does not prevent you or any editor from being blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I broke this because I sincerely believed that I was rolling back the vandalism, since it was done by an anonymous user without any argument, just monotonously like a bot. And whose edits have been canceled in the article for several months. And you continue not to listen to me, not understanding what I want to say (for example, for some reason you perceive a reference to my experience as a defense against a block, and not an indication of familiarity with the rules for some reason). I'm not trying to prevent someone from editing or discussing the article. I didn't even say a word about it (I even created two threads to discuss this on the talk page, both of which were ignored by anonymous, like my warnings or the admin block). My complaint is primarily based on the fact that a user with whom I have not previously crossed paths and who did not participate in the discussion or writing of the controversial text suddenly literally bursts into my dispute with an anonymous person and begins to behave like, I'm sorry, an elephant in a china shop, even without bothering to study the history and context of the conflict. Will you be annoyed by this? Especially after they get you banned and then innocently saying "I understand why you're upset, but that's not the reason." A collective community that works together requires some kind of decency and ability to work together, otherwise we would not be here now and discuss my love story with a user. However, once again I see how people listen only to my opponents (because, as I see it, the English Wikipedia values ​​bureaucratic complaints more than trying to get your point across in long words), turning me into a scapegoat without even thinking about my position. Solaire the knight (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Solaire the knight, if you have any questions about whether something belongs in an article, you should bring it up either in the respective article Talkpage or the editor's Talkpage. Reverting should, in my opinion, only be used when the edit is clear and patent vandalism, for which there appears to be little encylopaedic value to retain. You will note that professional expertise is NOT a prerequisite for editing on Wikipedia, and that all claims, however controversial, as long as they have legitimate backing from secondary sources of encyclopaedic value in accordance with WP:RSPSS or similar, are, prima facie, eligible for inclusion. And all discussions on Talkpages are, by default, public. Hence, there is nothing wrong with another user providing their two cents where they deem reasonable. You can, of course, petition for an WP:IBAN if you truly believe this case has escalated to that point, but, in my personal opinion, simply providing commentary on an ongoing content controversy without having violated any interaction policies is a poor rationale for an interaction ban. Augend  (drop a line) 06:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I easily built consensus with users who did not ignore the discussions and directly participated in the discussion instead of edit wars and complaining about me behind my back. But here I feel more and more like a character in the Kafikan Trial. About why I consider anonymous edits to be vandalism, I have already spoken many times and to different users. Each time it was in the nature of nonsensical excuses that were simply ignored with the generic "no, it's not vandalism" responses (which made me feel like people are either realizing they have nothing to say or just avoiding an uncomfortable argument). I just feel stuck. As I said above, I opened two topics there. One during the original partition addition and one after a fight with the admin who blocked me. Anonymous ignored both, the user who complained about me checked in there only after the ban. Moreover, he unequivocally supported the edits of the anonymous person, because of which I decided that he complained about me because of a conflict of interest. Before that, we did not intersect in any way, despite the fact that the user stubbornly continues to interfere in my disputes and beg for my blocking in various ways. I don't know how to solve this any other way than by ignoring his actions or banning our interactions. Otherwise, the user will continue to deliberately or unintentionally provoke me, and then destroy my participation in the project with the help of bureaucratic complaints and the expected trigger of my negative reaction to him. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It is time to let other editors comment. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Solaire the knight, Wikipedia welcomes anonymous editing. We would not have the edit function had it not been for the fact that Wikipedia, broadly, considers IP editing to be valuable. Nobody has claimed that anyone else is free of blame. But from what I've read, you are not in the clear either, and have had a chunk of the responsibility behind the conflict that has been caused. Quite frankly, it boils down to this: do not break the 3RR. Create consensus at the relevant article talkpage if content is contentious, and then WP:BOLDly make your edits. But there is no such thing as IP addresses being vandalism nor any suggestion that a third party intervening in a conflict is against the rules. You should know that. Augend  (drop a line) 06:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep talking to me like it's my first day on wikipedia and inexplicably grossly distorting my words, turning "I thought anonymous edits were vandalism" into "any anonymous edits should be banned". Please tell me how can I not feel cornered after this? I'm trying to explain the real context of the situation so I don't get another ban after a superficial one-sided examination of bureaucratic complaints, but instead you start explaining to me that water is wet and fire is hot. People here don't seem to even try to listen to me, either answering with dry learned rules or lecturing me on the basis of my words inexplicably distorted. Nowhere did I demand that any anonymous edits be considered vandalism, nor did I suggest that they be considered as such because they are anonymous. I have clearly explained my position several times. Why don't you listen to me? Or don't want to listen? Solaire the knight (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * [EdiConflict] Comment (as Uninvolved user)
 * 1) For users like me not having background of the topic are discussions seemed bit WP:TLDR so did not go through all of them. But still some observations after brief visit to discussions and article talk page along with archive of talk page.
 * 2) Direction of   Talk:Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury discussions suggest that primarily to be Content dispute.
 * 3) More than one parties likely to push their own version. WP:OWN attitude also seem visible in discussions. Without following further steps of WP:DR process.
 * 4) Locking article for some weeks and some form of interaction bans may be required.
 * 5) More uninvolved users adding article to their watch list may help in long run.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The page has already been protected several times. Both edit wars and random anonymous edits. This is what I was guided by when I asked to protect her once again. But my request was ignored, instead, a user who had not previously participated in any discussions and edits first accused me of an edit war, and then complained about me to the administrators behind my back. What made it all the final mess. And I'm really worried about persistent attempts to accuse me of trying to restrict other users from editing the article, although other users have repeatedly reverted my edits and I admitted that I was wrong. Including the original author of this section. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why further steps of WP:DR process are not being followed. Is responsibility of following WP:DR processes always on the other side? If every side decides not to initiate WP:DR steps then how any content disputes would get resolved?
 * I am not blaming any single side but if every one specially experienced users become proactive in implementing WP:DR steps instead of focus on personalisation of disputes that would help the project better, what do you think? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, the discussion simply died out due to the fact that I passively took the side of the original author of the section after a series of reversals of my edits, and other users simply expressed an opinion, but did not correct the article. Things have only become more complicated due to another awakening of the anti-woke anonymous and subsequent complaints from the OP, who for some reason preferred to create an actual conflict with the administrators out of this instead of any attempt to participate in the discussion or editing the article. It was this that pissed me off the most, because the user actually did not even try to make any contribution to resolving the dispute other than complaining about violations of the rules and asking for blocking me and formally anonymous (they even made me the initiator of the conflict, although the anonymous was the first to start the edit war and was the first to break the three-reversal rule). If you look at the talk page, his first formal comment was made after my blocking, and the second after I accused him of a conflict of interest and worsening the situation. In general, I am even fully prepared to leave the issue of this section to the discretion of the administrators. I literally created already two sections about its fate. This is not a question of truth. I was just extremely pissed off at how I was being made the scapegoat in an artificial attempt to ignite a conflict that could have been resolved in the bud. And the apparent bureaucratic indifference of the administrators and the culprit of the conflict to my attempts to explain the situation. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ Solaire the knight
 * If you doubt any signed in User tag teaming with any IP only way Email through SPI. I have not got into those details- personally, for want of time so I can't comment more, but in this case I doubt unproved COI comment would help much.
 * Understand this OP or any other uninvolved user/ admin not having background topic is much likely to follow similar bureaucratic steps. One problem is consensus is not formed and consensus is on which side is difficult to deduce for any uninvolved user/ admin.
 * 'discussion died down and 'The page has already been protected several times.' do not seem to add up. If you say 'The page has already been protected several times.' are not all those are missed opportunities of initiating discussions and consensus building?
 * IMO RfCs benefit in two ways help form consensus and attract new users to support the article. Here only few users are trying to control, if more users are there every time you or any single user does not need to control the article. Then there are more content resolution notice boards are there. If NPOV concern Option of tagging article for NPOV along with talk page discussion can be considered. Meaning there by there are more options in content dispute resolution.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, formally nothing forbids a third party to go and complain to the administrators without any real attempt to resolve the conflict in more peaceful ways. But it is also completely destructive in its essence, since it does not help to resolve the conflict at all, but only sharply worsens it, both in terms of unnecessary disputes and blocks instead of working on the article, and from a purely moral side, provoking hostility and resentment among users. I don't think the article was defended for other reasons. Although, as far as I remember, once she was protected from anonymous people due to a number of non-consensual edits and vandalism from anonymous addresses, you need to study the block log in more detail. On the other hand, the bureaucratic and cold reaction of administrators only complicates matters, as some administrators seem to think only in terms of rules, ignoring the discussion of the conflict at its core. Which, as far as I remember, grossly violates the principle of the dominance of the spirit of the rules over their letter. Anyway, imagine if in my place there was literally a person with zero wiki experience? They would literally be pulverized by all this bureaucracy and impersonal attitude. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

It is time some one helps write mid-discussion summary and let other editors comment. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A truly bizarre aspect of all this long winded arguing is that it is about Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury, a Japanese cartoon show. Really? Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? This conflict is an absolute drop in the vast ocean of conflicts and feuds that you can see in anime controversy, not to mention pop culture in general. It even happens that people send you insults and death threats just because of different opinions on how to enjoy a show. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Time for certain people to grow up, I guess. Maybe we should just block all the disruptive editors who work on cartoon show articles, Japanese or otherwise. I have blocked 8334 disruptive editors to date. Perhaps I need to increase that number significantly by delving into the cesspool you describe, . Cullen328 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're implying, but you might as well have to block everyone who writes about pop culture in general, not to mention that even the hottest cases of this do not equal the typical political or ideological conflict. On the wiki or on any other forums or sites on the Internet. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I will not be blocking everyone, only those who continue with disruption after being warned. Consider yourself warned, . Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is, you literally reproach me for trying to defend myself after the question of my action was taken unilaterally without my participation? And after trying to reproach me for hostility, the user below literally defiantly distorts my words and openly admits to being hostile to me? (I didn't specify what kind of disputes I are talking about, so the phrase "when they agree with you" is not only rude, but also a speculation about my intentions) Solaire the knight (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the links (and Solaire's reports at AN3 including this one,) I don't see that anything more than what SouthernNights said at the top is needed. Solaire doesn't seem to know what vandalism is, believes that it is the fault of the reporter if he gets blocked for his "justified" edit-warring, IPs don't count, and he "easily builds consensus" provided people agree with him. The only surprise is that he's been here that long without being indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You do understand that the phrase "easy to reach consensus when people agree with him" is rather rude, as well as trying to conclude that I don't know what vandalism is based on one dispute over the definition of edits? You have not responded to any of my arguments, but have simply formulated rough conclusions about me and my intentions. If I was in some way wrong about the assessment of the actions of the OP, then your words directly are unambiguously hostile. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. I haven't responded to your arguments. I've formed a view of you and expressed it. That's what happens at ANI when someone makes a complaint about you (which in my opinion is entirely justified). DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is, if I understood you correctly, you are now openly defending a hostile comment addressed to me and even directly flaunting that its ignores my explanations about the situation? A very strange way to reproach someone with hostility, to put it mildly. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you understand what's happening here. Editors are giving their opinions on whether you should be sanctioned and 2 admins have given you a final warning. Yes, you can expect some "hostility" to your behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously not see the difference between a critical assessment of someone's actions and outright hostility, including gross distortions of other people's words? I don’t presume to judge your intentions (it seems that only my opponents are allowed here), but what you are doing now only adds coal to this already protracted conflict, provoking me to further emotional responses. If you are so hostile to me and are not going to non-ironically provoke me into getting a ban, please refrain from commenting further. You've already said everything you wanted to say and more than that. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to stop defending yourself, to read and absorb the very clear warnings you have already been given, and to demonstrate that you understand them and will change your behavior. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This missing the point, misstating others opinions, and bludgeoning seems to be a common feature whenever Solaire’s conduct is brought to a noticeboard. ANI from last year, and their first block for edit warring, where after a short partial block they attacked other users ethnicity on the ANEW report necessitating it becoming a sitewide block. This is a user whose discussion style does them no favours, and is pretty disruptive the way they flood discussions. Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This flood literally exists due to the fact that any of my attempts to explain my actions or how to defend myself are met with incessant accusations, as if I were on the board of shame (and of course, in the case of pointing to that block, you didn’t care at all about the situation, not its context, because I’m the only one who is always and in everything to blame. Especially with you). I am literally accused of trying to defend myself, and not blindly accepting the accusations, moreover, accepted even without my participation. But I just don't care anymore. Everything that I say in my defense is either ignored in favor of dry references to the book of rules, or grossly distorted and interpreted as my own fault. Even when someone is openly hostile to me, violating the very rules of which I am accused of breaking, I myself am to blame. I'm just tired of being the scapegoat, do what you want. I won't cancel vandalism anymore because I don't want to go through all that toxicity and passive aggressiveness again. Thanks for the dialogue. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to stop defending yourself and instead to demonstrate an understanding of the warnings you have already been given. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response SouthernNights. Sad to see Solaire hanging themselves when this thread really should have ended there. --CandyScythe (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! I go to bed after posting my warning and woke up to a loquacious flood. But after looking through all of Solaire the knight's comments since yesterday I see nothing to change my initial assessment and the warning I gave stands. Solaire, you need to stop harassing users or you will be blocked. It's as simple as that.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I stopped all communication with this user yesterday. And even closed the topic in the discussion of the article. But it still goes in a vicious circle where people make accusations, and my response to them gets new accusations in a vicious circle. Even after I directly wrote that I cease to justify myself in any way if I am called guilty in any case. I even asked another admin to close the thread to stop this. Maybe you will already do it? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you did all that, which is why I didn't block you already. As for closing this thread, I'll leave that to another uninvolved admin to decide on. But the easiest way to have this thread closed is for you to stop replying to everyone. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did this a few hours ago, when I realized that it was simply pointless and no one was listening to me anyway. I hope that my current answer to you will not be regarded as some kind of my new fault. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, I wanted to report an account that has been taking advantage of its reversal rights to reverse any referenced information in its favor. your name is BastianMAT. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.68.66.46 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Any time you discuss another user on this noticeboard, you have to go to their talk page to let them know. I notified them here but please do this part yourself in the future. Thanks. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 17:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, @97.68.66.46, can you clarify? User:BastianMAT does not have any sort of "reversal rights" to take advantage of, and additionally, I don't have any clue what edits you're talking about. What page did this happen on? None of the edits from the IP address you're commenting as were reverted by that user casualdejekyll  17:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know what he is even talking about, but well let him do whatever he wants. The only thing being enforced is that sources to political pages need to have reliable sources and disputes needs to be resolved with consesus, but I guess this user is against that. BastianMAT (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me add this IP user is using a sockpuppet account named User:Holiptholipt, and reverted dozens of users when told that he can’t use WP:PRIMARY. Someone has to tell him, but as he has been refusing to discuss, and just using reverts and offensive language such as accusing me of being a vandalizer, I’ll let you guys decide what to do with this information. BastianMAT (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - can you explain why you think the IP is Holiptholipt? I just checked the IP's contribs, and there doesn't appear to be any overlap with that account. Sure enough, there doesn't appear to be any overlap with yourself either, so it's obviously someone LOUTSOCKing, just wondered whether you could explain your thinking on the connection to that account. If you could also provide diffs of them reverting with offensive language, that would be helpful. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:103.176.140.112
They are troubling me again if you want you check my archive i have archived their message on talk page and they are saying i am sock but don't file a spi  K-Pop Stan  (✍️•📚) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * For convenience, the behavior in question is preserved at User_talk:ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy/Archive_1. The required ANI notice has also been doled out. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 12:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I found from that they made similar edits between November and December 2022, where they posted apologies and threats to WP:SPI toward . It's impossible to tell if the mainspace edits from this New Delhi IP range are coming from the same person, but most of these edits are also problematic.
 * List of known diffs:
 * , self-reverted at
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * There was also a Mumbai IPv6 range that is already blocked for other reasons; edits associated with this behavior include and . –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 12:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 
 * A new comment on their talk page  K-Pop Stan  (✍️•📚) 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Relevant links . These are all definitely socks. The first and second links, of the IP initially reported and the one mentioned by LaundryPizza, share the same location, and the third one, located in New Delhi, not far from the other two, share the same description of a company. This is an editor that made personal attacks in the past of a similar description to the others. A WP:SPI is needed here to check for others. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This editor has various ip address where they do this, I have been tired of this  K-Pop Stan  (✍️•📚) 03:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User TheruralGuy
User TheruralGuy has been making disruptive edits to various Wikipedia articles and when asked to stop doing so, they resort to making abusive comments in-response. User seems to have a bias against certain communities and deletes mention of them from articles.

Diffs are below.

Abusive comments: ,

Deletion of mention of the word 'Muslim' from an article (I reverted them and left a talkpage message explaining why and they did not reply conductively and ended-up deleting the word 'Muslim' from the article again:,  ,

Overall, this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia nor work collaboratively with others. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , does the word "Muslim" appear in the cited sources? I cannot read them. If the word "Muslim" does not appear, then there is nothing improper about removing it. If it does appear and the editor is improperly trying to keep it out, then that is a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first reference mentions "Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslims" but I cannot access the second. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the edits TheruralGuy made seem to suggest that he/she is on a crusade against Muslims. He/she is also misusing the minor edits check box in his/her edits - and his/her talk page shows that he was warned about this on 13 April 2023.


 * The relevant pages of both sources cited are available on Google Books: Intangible Heritage Embodied pages 50-51, Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy page 188. Both sort of support the text they are cited for in the article, but not explicitly. It is clear that the Punjabiyat idea is about bringing Indians and Pakistanis, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Muslim together, and that trying to exclude Muslims/Pakistanis/West Punjabis from this is unsupported.  It would be an improvement if the article were modified to say something explicitly stated by the sources cited for it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No comment on the content of the edits but the language in the commentary certainly should use some addressing. Augend  (drop a line) 06:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Crows Yang behavior
User User:Crows Yang has recently started to edit the article Sino-Soviet border conflict. Their first edits were quite good and improved the article quality by expanding on the Chinese version of the events. We had a quite civil discussion on User_talk:Crows_Yang, however, later their edits started to show, in my opinion, explicit bias that is not acceptable by Wikipedia standard. We had a discussion on the Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict and it didn't went... well. Their messages and edit descriptions started to became more and more hostile. By the end of discussion I almost have snapped. I understand that the article has multiple problems, I acknowledge that I have my opinions and preferences regarding the events discussed and I know that I still have a lot to learn before I'll become a proficient Wiki editor, however, user Crows Yang ignores my attempts at polite discussion of the article issues on the Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict argumenting it by, as I understand it, that two wrongs are somehow making one right. Their latest response in Talk:Sino-Soviet_border_conflict is "Screw u, like a said, I've provided reliable sources and you treat them as 'unneutral' cuz they were against your personal preference. I'll keep an eye on the edition, don't even think about putting me out of the game with your silly actions. You changed it, I change it back...." I find this unacceptable and I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Wikipedia rules. DestructibleTimes (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ths editor with the ID name "DestructibleTimes" is very double standard and biased for the edition of the page-"Sino Soviet Border Conflict". DestructibleTimes and another editor "Editorkamran" have been overseeing the edition of this page by keeping eyes on other editors' editions. They judge other editor's editions, especially the reliability and neutrality of their sources. But the problem is, they are not even neutral or objective themselves.

We've found that the conclusions made by historians from the West, Soviet/Russia and China regarding to the result of the Sino-Soviet Conflict were highly disputed. There's no single one conclusion about this conflict, some sources claimed Soviet Victory, other sources claimed Chinese victory, and most other sources did not claim victory for each side. In this circumstances, DestructibleTimes insisted on putting "Soviet Victory" in the top infobox of this page as the result of the conflict. I tried to add another claim from another source to show the readers that the result of the conflict was in fact disputed, indecisive. We can't just mark one side's victory as the result. However, DestructibleTimes became extremely critical and picky about my edition by imposing false charges against them. He claimed my source's neutrality was disputed, while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory". The source I cited was published by University Press, which was very reliable and objective per Wiki's policy. In this case, DestructibleTimes has been conducting a "double standard" treating other editors' editions.

So that's why I'm seeking help from the Dear administrator, please check on this editor's editing history for any issues involved, thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crows Yang (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "But the problem is, they are not even neutral or objective themselves."
 * WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. And I haven't deleted anything because of perceived lack of neutrality, I merely stated my opinions about some of the sources you provided on talk page. In my opinion, the Result sections shouldn't contain anything but confirmed facts while you have consistently tried to put opinions disguised as facts there. Due to various reasons we really have not so much confirmed facts about the event and that's why we should avoid strong assertions based on single source. That's why I moved your statements to other places and rephrased them to make sure they do not violate WP:NPOV.
 * "In this circumstances, DestructibleTimes insisted on putting 'Soviet Victory' in the top infobox of this page as the result of the conflict."
 * Excuse me, but it is trivial to verify that this never happened by checking the page edit history. In fact, it was me who stated on the talk page that this is a questionable claim.
 * "He claimed my source's neutrality was disputed, while completely ignored the sources which claimed 'Soviet Victory'."
 * 1) The problem is not with the sources but with the statements - please re-read my opinion on the Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict. Since you decided to ignore my concerns and tried to delete the template, I went ahead and attempted to fix the issue myself with this [edit] that you reverted still ignoring the discussion. 2) I can pick issues I want to work on, yes. If you want other issues to be fixed, you can do it yourself. Two wrongs don't make one right. DestructibleTimes (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This war was a Soviet victory. This should be handled in talk page, not here. Editorkamran (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not have an opinion on who is correct, but this appears to be a simple content dispute, and should be handled on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All we get right now is only "I'll wait and see what's going to happen, the article as well as the top infobox is not your private property, I won't let you two 'Soviet Victory' believers rule over it.", "So anything you try to add in there, I have ways to 'prove' them wrong....lol" and "By another way, neither Editorkamran nor you seem to be experienced in studying the history of war...lol".
 * Does it sound like willingness to build a consensus? Judging by this and other statements (e.g. their beliefs about sources) I think @Crows Yang has absolutely zero idea at how all this Wikipedia thing works. Looks like they think we make articles by winning edit wars. DestructibleTimes (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear administrator, please allow me to explain everything accused by User @DestructibleTimes aginst me. I'm sure you might have noticed what this user's saying like 【 In my opinion, the Result sections shouldn't contain anything but confirmed facts...】, 【please re-read my opinion on the Talk...】. That means, he listed the policies here, and insisted on stating "His Own Opinions", meaning his accusations against my edition were all based on his own opinion and interpretation of the policies. I've displayed my arguments by directly quoting what these policies say on the Talk page, there was nowhere saying the sources I used could not be cited as references just because they were someone's own opinion. I also argued that all the sources appearing on Wiki are in fact based on opinions. But User @DestructibleTimes kept charging my sources while ignoring the same issues in his own and User Editorkamran's sources just because mine are not in favor of their own preferences.
 * User DestructibleTimes's accusation of 【while completely ignored the sources which claimed "Soviet Victory"】is a straight-up distortion of what's been going on here. I did not ignore the sources claiming Soviet Victory, but I do have sources that claimed Chinese victory, that's why I've found the result of this Sino-Soviet Conflict is too controversial to conclude. But user DestructibleTimes behaved extremely picky on my editions and threw false charges against them with his own opinion, this user and user Editorkamran insisted it was Soviet Victory by making "unneutral" charges against my sources sorely based on his own opinion and own interpretations of the policy. Yes, I might have deleted some templates by mistake, and User DestructibleTimes reverted the deletion, and I did not revert it back. I simply added sth with support from the sources I found, but user DestructibleTimes removed it to aftermath per its own opinion and decision. This was unacceptable.
 * I must admit that I'm a newcomer of Wiki, I'm being doing all I can to get familair with the policies and our mission as editors here. But newcomers can't be viewed by someone as excuses to distort the fact and history events. I believe that our top mission on Wiki (especially the history articles) is to help our readers know the whole story of the historican events, let the readers see all the details hidden behind each event, not to judge the ownership of Victory.
 * And, yes, for all the reasons above, I don't want any further discussion with this user DestructibleTimes, cuz the discussion will remain contested and become worthless to continue. So I'm here to seek help from you, Dear administrator, to uphold the justice. I will continue to work hard on the editions, and try to do better in the future. Please let me know if there are any flaws with my edition and I'll be happy to fix the flaws. Crows Yang (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "I don't want any further discussion with this user DestructibleTimes"
 * Yeah, that's exactly what is going on here. Crows Yangs doesn't want to discuss anything, they want... something, but neither state what exactly they want, nor they have tried to implement their own solution to the issue stated by them. I've asked them:
 * "We are still supposed to reach the consensus, though (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). You haven't offered anything resembling 'The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.', though it is you who strongly claim that there is a problem. You just talk about bias this, bias that. Please state your proposal at last!"
 * and guess what, got nothing except this attempt at 檢討 DestructibleTimes (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Crows Yang is frequently threatening in edit summaries to keep edit warring per his own statements, "I will keep changing it back if anyone attempts to add any nonsense to the edition!" "You can add whatever you want, but if you delete anything, I revert it back!". Editorkamran (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now this is a clear WP:CIR issue. Editorkamran (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it should be considered whether WP:3RR is being, or has been, violated. Per my view it appears that the parties are very close to, if not having already exceeded, the qualitative considerations for edit warring. Virtually the entire edit log on the page from the past 4 days were from the same (very few) editors. Augend  (drop a line) 06:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has got out of hand, complete with battleground behaviour by more than one party. I have taken an interest in resolving the content dispute. Hopefully those involved will follow the norms of acceptable Wiki conduct and work collaboratively to improve this article. Edit warring today is IMHO sufficient to warrant at least one, if not both editors involved being blocked. However, an admonishment is hopefully sufficient remedy. Let's see how things go. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

USER:Longway22
1.He took the personal attack to me instead of the explain of his undo of my contribution as the Edit summary （making offensive edit summaries） at 15:08, 12 May 2023 (as the diff).He ignores the truth, that I have come up for a discussion to these points on the Talk-page for a week(as the diff).

2.He took the personal attack to me as the only reason to request for page protection at 06:18, 13 May 2023(as the revision of 06:19, 13 May 2023).

3.After the other editor has given some advices (as the diff), he still has not participated the disscusion but continued to make me up as a violator of the rules, like a WP:LTA(as the revision of 09:47, 13 May 2023)

4.He clearly refused to discuss about what he did(as the diff).

By the way, he has been blocked for mischaracterizing others' actions in zhwiki recently（as the Special:Diff）. He has lied many times on one dicussion. He has claimed, that the conclusion of the dicussion is "MINQI did original research and other participants identified his opinion", at least in two other discussions （1 2）. But the truth is totally opposite —— one other editor has found the provement of my opinion's correctness(as the diff). --MINQI (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You wrote an equally harsh edit summary regarding Longway22. is there a reason we should view these edit summaries any differently from each other?
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you neglect his behavior as the baiting, I would to say there is no big difference but his edit on that page is really related to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, as I mentioned at 09:47, 11 May 2023. MINQI (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of you have edited on this Wikipedia very much. Both of you are prolific contributors on the Chinese Wikipedia (zh.wikipedia):
 * Longway22’s zh edit history
 * block log
 * MINQI’s zh edit history
 * block log
 * As you note in one of your diffs above, Longway22 has been blocked recently on zh.Wikipedia. You yourself have been blocked many more times.
 * We usually only consider behavior on this Wikipedia. We have a language barrier and the many Wikimedia projects also respect each other’s autonomy. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes,I have been bolcked many more times and if you want to know more about them you can watch this page.
 * Since you usually only consider behavior on this Wikipedia, I will stop talking about things on zhwiki. Let's just examine what happened between me and Longway22 on 12 May 2023 and 13 May 2023. MINQI (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

PS：For the 1st point, I want to add some words. I think he was belittling me and purposed to deliberately push me to the point of breaching civility(I have no choice but tit for tat in the Edit summary, as the diff). And he has done in the similar way in zhwiki, using inappropriate edit summary to undo other's contribution.--MINQI (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in this WP:RPPI archive, the two editors need to calmly discuss issues on article talk and try to get a WP:WIKIPROJECT involved. Do not talk about personal attacks and other waffle. Just talk about article content—what reliable sources should be used, and what text should be added or removed from an article and why. If neither of the editors are able to do that, both should be indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with "Just talk about article content—what reliable sources should be used, and what text should be added or removed from an article and why. If neither of the editors are able to do that, both should be indefinitely blocked. ". It's fair to both of us. I have made a discussion request on "Talk:Transnational authoritarianism" at 19:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC). And I have explained why I did that edit at 09:47, 11 May 2023(diff).
 * I do not want to say it, but he has attacked personally (me and regarded those who not agrees with him in zh communities as not good fellows), talked about things from zhwiki and refused to discuss with me again, just as below.
 * PS: I request RFC for the Edit's Problem. MINQI (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Johnuniq@A. B.I would agree for reasonable discussion based on reliable sources and more local editors to assist the issues.Just again as I reported in record,I pretty sure the case would 100% getting out of hand based on pattern of MINQI.All good fellows in zh communities would agree that,
 * You gays should know why I and other memmbers from zhwikipedia are all like keep no more talk with MINQI,because all the processes have been out of the line thanks for MINQI's great endless crusade against all the talking. I could say that MINQI would keep on editing with the idea of repression on anyone against its political agenda，and would not satisfy only if there wouldn't be writting arguments agaist its claim on articles and sources.
 * So if you guys just like ignore the going on question of the one-side endless propaganda,could you guys give official ban on Interaction between my account and MINQI? @WMLO have got one as the zhadmins now wouldn't deal with all the issues of MINQI,so I would like have one chance for same break from harassment and I could only tell good luck for you good fellows. Longway22 (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All people here can see is two editors who disagree with each other. We see that all the time. If you want some attention, you will need to focus on article content: stop talking about other editors and start (on article talk) to specify text that you believe is wrong or otherwise inappropriate, and explain why. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He did it again(diff).I have nothing to say. MINQI (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Lute88
This is just... something. I created a topic just asking the user a simple favour and they completely removed my comment without explanation. Is this really allowed on English Wikipedia? Summer talk 16:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors are entitled to remove comments from their own talk page (see WP:OWNTALK), and it was inappropriate for you to revert that removal. As to your request, it isn't typically expected to ping other editors in the edit summary for a revert; the notification system informs an editor if their edit is reverted. If you disagree with the revert they made, start a discussion on the article's talk page. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Different place, different traditions". My homewiki prohibits any removal of talk page comments unless they are vandalism or bot messages. Thanks for clearing this up, closing. Summer talk 17:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User: Mayamam123


The who just came 4 days back have copied my entire content. Administrators please take action against this person under copyright violations. Pri2000 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pri2000: You are required to notify someone properly when you create an ANI discussion about them (don't just say they're reported, give them the link to the discussion). I've done so . Please try to be more descriptive when making an ANI thread, as it's not obvious what you were talking about at first read through. It's clear to me now that you are upset that they copied content that you had on your user page. What part of the templates and user boxes that they copied from your page do you believe is copyright protected? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not a copyvio, but copying another user's userpage almost exactly (I only see the absence of the "female contributor" userbox) and making false claims in doing it (Mayamam123 is not, in fact, extended confirmed) is enough to make me suspicious of the new account. Courcelles (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually would disagree; unless you give attribution in the edit summary, copying a userpage is not allowed; userpages are also subject to WP:CC-BY-SA, and copying anything without attribution is against the rules. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 is correct, see WP:COPYWITHIN for the relevant guideline. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Yes, attribution is required if copying something that's original enough to be eligible for copyright protection. In this case? There's nothing there but userboxes, and the formatting isn't above the threshold of originality.  There's nothing on the copy that would justify copyright protection. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I typically don't try to edit other user's pages. Would it be appropriate, in cases such as this, to adjust or remove service awards? I can't imagine doing it for an established editor, but this to me looked like a new editor trying to create a page of their own who may not understand the service awards. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pri2000 Dear, I made a mistake, I'm sorry, now I have corrected my user page. Mayamam123 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Vyyyrhastar: possible COI
It appears that may be creating articles on people with whom they have a connection.

Their editing history shows 10 little edits on 1 April, each removing one set of brackets from a red link, the creation of a user page, and then, from 7 April, entire new articles being created. (Judging from the talk page, there were some intermediate article creations, now deleted). Some of the articles (eg Renná Bruce and Kai Dahlhaus) include content such as date of birth which is not apparently in any of the sources given. Two of the articles include images, uploaded to Commons as "Own work". One of these appears to the image from which the subject's LinkedIn photo has been cropped, and one appears identical to an image on IMDB, and has "forward" and "backward" arrows visible. I note that Simon Hofer (speaker) was deleted on 7 April as unambiguous advertising: it may be a coincidence that Kai Dahlhaus (article created by this editor on 7 April) "works with Simon Hofer, Frank Asmus, and other renowned names in the industry as a coach and trainer in speaker training".

I have asked the editor on their talk page whether they have a COI, but they have not replied although they have edited, indeed created new drafts, since that question.

We may have here a misguided editor creating articles about their friends and acquaintances, or just using unreliable sources which they don't know how to cite, and misunderstanding about copyright in images. WP:CIR. My WP:AGF is wearing thin, so I raise this here in case other editors recognise this pattern of editing or have any other thoughts. , all of whom have previously posted on this editor's talk page. Pam D  20:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether it is a lack of ability in editing, or paid. The 10 edits to get auotconfirmed is suspicious, but I've seen "guides" on the Internet providing this advice so it hard to say. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to me like this is a UPE making promo pieces. I just nominated one of their articles for G11 speedy deletion. I would support sanctions at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Images were speedied on commons. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Their newest draft were speedied for copyvio. Carpimaps (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed. Spamming, UPE, NOTHERE, I don’t really care which on that list it is, it’s not good whichever it is, because it’s one of them. Courcelles (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234
Hello!

Please consider the claim against the user -Sportsfan 1234. He makes non-constructive edits and removes links of reliable sources on the page - 2022–23 Biathlon World Cup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022%E2%80%9323_Biathlon_World_Cup&action=history

Sincerely, to the administration of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwaystat (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Norwaystat, you failed to notify Sportsfan1234 despite the big notice on top of the page. No worries, though, I did it for you. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 23:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norwaystat, you haven't attempted to discuss this on the article's talk page or the editor's talk page. You should try those approaches before posting here. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a content dispute, where two editors are edit warring now, over the use of non-English sources on the English Wikipedia. Additionally, calling edits nonconstructive in this context is very far-fetched. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet harassment
I’m here to request the immediate indeff of 2605:59C8:60C8:C10:4D:87A1:31A8:7C7, it seems that this IP hopping user has been harassing @Wes sideman for awhile, and has turned to also harass me after I left him a message of support. I think all the needed evidence can be seen in this [|dif]. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Googleguy007 IPs aren't usually indeffed, but a longish range block might do it. Not an admin, though, so I can't say. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave this /64 a week; the previous /64 is already blocked. If they pop up again elsewhere on that /38, let me know and I'll give the wider range at least a few days. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Bestchest160713 and WP:IDHT
This user has been contacted repeatedly by myself and on their talk page at User talk:Bestchest160713 about inserting "Super" before "typhoon" (example) and introducing incorrect unit conversions (example), both against WP:WPTC consensus, as well as outright introducing incorrect values (example), all without responding on their talk page or anywhere – classic WP:IDHT behavior. I therefore request that the user be blocked, at least from the mainspace, until they respond on their talk page or otherwise discuss their disputed edits. Nearly all of their edits are reverted, and given that this now numbers about 20 reverted edits and four warnings, this has gone on for long enough. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I left a message at User talk:Bestchest160713. Please let me know (for example, by adding a diff of a new edit with a brief explanation of a problem at the user's talk, with a ping to me) if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove Wanttokillspicy's ability to edit talk pages
Abusing the user's talk page after being blocked, and this user was created to attack the administrator in a premeditated manner. -- ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 07:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'v already done it. Secretlondon (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, please directly reject the user's unblock request, as it has been locked globally, and unblocking is of little significance. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas  07:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It has all been cleaned up (by deletion). Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

IP POV-pushing on "Rape during the occupation of Germany"
IP is POV-pushing and edit-warring on Rape during the occupation of Germany.  (3RR vio) It's worth noting that they're also doing this on ukwiki. Please block. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef semied as an AE action, and those POV pushing IP's blocked. Courcelles (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of this...
Two accounts are tag-teaming the entry of essentially unreferenced gibberish at New Hill, North Carolina. Well, one of them added a reference, but it doesn't in any way verify what the confusing statement said. They have reverted me twice, and I don't want to violate either WP:INVOLVED or WP:3RR, but if someone else could look over the situation and sort it out, that would be great. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Those are ✅ socks and are now indef blocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias. I figured as much.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Page semiprotected for a week due to the content dispute. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Redacted II (retracted)
I would like to report User:Redacted II's consistent disruptive canvassing and burgeoning behavior at Talk:SpaceX Starship for many months now, despite RfC consensus has been formed and many editors reminding them to stop (especially at Talk:SpaceX_Starship and Talk:SpaceX_Starship which the RfC thread is made after the previous RfC consensus is made, determining that the first Starship flight test is a failure). Redacted II's voluminous posting has also make the debate far more complicated than it should be. See also at the archive of the page: Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 4 and Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 5. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It would appear you failed to notify of this ANI discussion. I did it for you, but please remember next time. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @QuicoleJR: was notified, just not using the standard ANI-notice template. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't see that. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For context: I was the one that started that discussion User talk:Redacted II as a friendly tip to a new editor that is just learning how to edit. I find it inappropriate that it was used as a starting point for an ANI report especially since the user has acknowledged my advice and is trying to improve and has had no recent issues I am aware of (the evidence provided seems to predate my "friendly editing tip").
 * I have seen no issues with Redacted's behaviours that are grave enough to warrant sanctioning. Just some initial inexperience and excessive enthusiasm?
 * This feels like an attempt to pile on against a new editor with whom @CactiStaccingCrane has a grudge. Doesn't look good at all given his superior experience. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree that to be honest, I don't really view Redacted II positively, I've tried to put that aside until when Redacted II try to do things like making another RfC when the last RfC didn't went with the result that they want. Plus with the excessive amount of comments that's about the same thing (that Starship orbital test flight is a success), if that's not canvassing and burgeoning, I don't know what is. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

IP being uncivil and casting aspersions
While perusing RCP and reverting vandalism with Huggle, I came across Issam Fares, where an IP deletes some sourced content with the explanation of "non notable". This doesn't make sense to me, so I revert with the explanation of "unexplained content removal". They then revert back with the same explanation, non-notable. This happens 3 times in total, me two more times:  and they revert two more times,. I stopped after my 3rd revert, but on their 4th undo of that content, they accuse me of breaching 3RR when I did not. . I decided to leave them an edit warring template. Which they then deleted off their talk page as "inappropriate". After talking with some fine folks in the WP Discord, I do believe that the content was non-notable, and I admit I may have been a bit harsh, which I do apologize to the IP for. It was suggested to me to leave a nice handwritten note on their talk page, inviting them to discuss on the talk page of the article, which they did do to some extent. I'm not focused on that anymore. What is bringing me here, is the IP has been very uncivil with me on my talk page and on the article talk page, bringing up other some user page edits of mine that are completely unrelated to this conversation, well as mentioning my "long history of edit warring" and "associated blocks", which seems to me a little extreme, given I only have 1 block for edit warring, almost 9-10 months ago, and my last block before that, was over 9 years ago, when I first started editing WP. I'm not sure what to do in this situation, and frankly, I'm kinda scared that I did something wrong. I would like this to be resolved. Any help would be appreciated. (I may not see this, so please ping me when you reply. Thanks.)  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I saw the discussion on Discord and decided to check out the ANI thread.)
 * I haven't outright taken a look at the contributions here, but I would say be careful on the reverts. WP:3RR is a hard limit, but you can still be edit warring without reverting more than 3 times. Keep that in mind – your block log having a block for edit warring in it is already not a good sign.
 * It's clear to me that you are acting in good faith, and you're not trying to cause disruption. My advice would be to take a step back and calm down some in these situations – follow WP:BRD, as opposed to reverting multiple times, there's very rarely a good reason to revert multiple times unless it's obvious vandalism. The article doesn't have to be fixed instantly, it can wait for discussion on the talk page; Wikipedia is a work in progress. Take a look at the specific content you're reverting, see if they have a point, which they appear to have had here. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  00:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, forgot the ping. see above.  Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Yoshi24517, I don't think either of you covered yourselves with laurels there. You were edit-warring (as was the IP editor); 3RR is not an entitlement, and as the edit-warring policy says: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Furthermore, as the verifiability policy says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so generally speaking, it is incumbent on you to explain why the material should stay more than the IP to explain why it should be removed (especially when it's cited to such luminaries as "superyachtfan.com" and "mansionglobal.com"). The IP was being uncivil, but you weren't doing much better by dismissing them out of hand. Regardless, not seeing anything for ANI to do here in the way of admin actions, so take it as a learning opportunity, I guess. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and : Will do. I guess I need to tone it down a bit, and will trout myself as well. To be honest, I completely forgot about that sentence in WP:V, though that isn’t an excuse, and I’m not excusing my actions in any way. I will reread the verifiability policy again, to make sure I fully understand it in its entirety. Thank you both. All I ask is that IP tone down the accusations, and to not dig up other edits that have nothing to do with the current issue, and I will do the same as I was a bit harsh myself. If theres nothing else to be done here, this can be closed. Thank you both again, and I will go reread the policy again. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your regular sig is *very* hard to read: not enough contrast between the letters and the background. (I had to highlight it to be able to read it.) Your mobile sig is fine, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:BragaPortugal making legal threats
This user just made a legal threat on their talk page, please revoke their tpa. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 00:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * in addition, they're being a giant dick so tpa revocation should help and hopefully deal with the legal threats. This is just pure disruption and their behavior is disruptive. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 00:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They were WP:POVPUSHING before they got indeffed for vandalism. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Vedisassanti
User:Vedisassanti has been abusing talk pages for personal attacks, aspersions, baffling threads like the one I collapsed at Talk:Lost Cause of the Confederacy, WP:NOTFORUM, and other problematic behavior. They were warned twice in quick succession but basically responded with “I was right because the other guy is bad” and “why?” Dronebogus (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you so insistent on harassing me? And then you misrepresent my words to attack me rather than judge my recommendations on a level basis. Nothing I have done has been problematic, I have made no attacks, and I fail to see how any of my recommendations could be considered problematic. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are REFUSINGTOGETIT on why calling people antisemitic, misogynistic or racist or making nonsense unactionable requests is bad and disruptive. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus in regards to the link you just posted. You are simply screaming into the void while claiming you have the consensus. Why are you so intent on harassing me? You are the only one taking issue with me, and you have hunted down other activity in regards to my recommendations to make Wikipedia a less harmful place. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eli_Cohen#Deleted_weasel-worded_section accusations of antisemitism
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sada_Abe&diff=prev&oldid=1155465026 accusations of misogyny
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy&diff=prev&oldid=1155474658 accusations of racism Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linda_Avey&diff=prev&oldid=1155483390 Nonsense request Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
 * I made an accusation of antisemitic motive when confronted with an antisemitic motive.
 * I made an accusation of possible misogyny. That was simply a call for further review of an article that placed far too much emphasis on the sexual life of its subject.
 * And I made no accusation of racism in that article, simply stating the fact that white supremacists would use the article to bolster their claims. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are casting WP:aspersions. You are not assuming good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sada Abe is notable BECAUSE of her unusual sex life. You can’t not focus on it. Dronebogus (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You literally called that user an antisemite. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Abe-san's life was remarkable because of the situations she was forced into and how she reacted to it. The sexual components are tangential, and when they are relevant, the article goes into such unnecessary detail that it is uncomfortable to read.
 * I called nobody an antisemite, I asked them to put their antisemitism aside. You don't have to be an antisemite to express an antisemitic remark. Everyone isn't aware of their words at all times. At no time was I rude or accusatory. I asked quite nicely.
 * Now I'm asking you politely to stop harassing me. Vedisassanti (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are just going to say “you’re wrong” in so many words and argue semantics until someone agrees with you, which no one has. Textbook WP:IDHT Dronebogus (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not once said you were wrong. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth, I have rebutted every claim you have levied against me, and anyone who cares enough to investigate our interactions can clearly see that I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken any rules, and I have not argued in bad faith. I don't know why you're attacking me like this, but it's concerning what angle you're coming at me from. Vedisassanti (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Clearly not here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Vedisassanti is a clear case of NOTHERE. His/her actionable offences are abuse of other editors (some overlap with Dronebonus here):
 * Charges editors in good faith with being "angry white racists"
 * Warned of AGF and NPA, by  but responds "That obviously doesn't apply to people who are openly nazis" and charges editors with being "white supremecists". After explanation by  responds "Don't be part of the problem".


 * Accuses editor who inserted a photo of Linda Avey of having "an agenda to discredit her".
 * Invokes NPA, thus demonstrating familiarity with that policy.
 * Accuses editor of antisemitism.
 * After Dronebogus replied "don't attack people", responded "No attack was made, I was simply disagreeing with him and calling their motives into question based on their history." Later absurdly writes "I called nobody an antisemite. I told them they should set their antisemitism aside" and falsely claims to be harrassed.
 * Meanwhile, I issued an NPA warning on his/her talk page, to which the response was to repeat the antisemitism charge.


 * At Sada Abe writes "I'm seriously questioning the motives of the editors here."

It is clear from Vedisassanti's responses here so far that he/she either seriously doesn't get it or is intentionally trolling. And again he/she repeated the false charge of antisemitism and followed it with "I called nobody an antisemite". I would have issued a block myself except that the first example of disruption I came across was in ARBPIA where I'm involved. Please relieve us of this burden. Zerotalk 12:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked by Ingenuity indef. Beat me to it I was going to do the same. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Their talk interaction shows they are here to right great wrongs, and that is AGF. Maybe a TBAN from American politics articles. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content after multiple notices


At a glance, pretty much all contributions to zoo articles are unsourced, and this is their response to the guidelines:. Would appreciate more eyes, and hear if there's a good rationale for not doing a mass reversion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps much of this was translated from a foreign language Wiki, but the absence of sources, and any intent to add them, is of concern. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Notified Greyjoy as well.  Heart  (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * has shown remarkable restraint. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) The content added to Wuppertal Zoo is a translation from dewiki, de:Zoo Wuppertal. It's unsourced there too; and there's also the problem of unacknowledged interwiki copying, see WP:TFOLWP. Narky Blert (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have had several interactions with the user and have not had much luck getting them to start referencing their additions, I am not sure if there is some sort of language barrier but some of their talk page messages come across fairly combative  Grey joy talk 08:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have left a talk-page message in German on their talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) It's no doubt he needs a block, he's clearly WP:NOTHERE. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked. Considering their persistence in adding unsourced (and likely copyvio / unattributed) content, and their exceedingly aggressive response to editors' concerns about this, I am indefinitely blocking . As always, any admin is free to unblock in response to an unblock request that credibly indicates that the user understands the problem and will not continue to disrupt Wikipedia.  Sandstein   14:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Worst case scenario, he starts vandalizing on the German wiki. (which will likely lead to a cross-wiki block). I'll keep an eye on him on the German wiki. Seeing that he has some warnings on his German user talk page, that may be the case. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks on a ITN featured article
I created the ITN fetured 2023 Manipur violence and on 7 May 2023 it was provided with semi-protection. @Songangte in this edit added a new paragraph which couldnt be more non-constructive to the article. It was placed in the middle of another section. It used unsourced words like "Genocide" and also had copyright violations which are yet to be addressed by the folks at copyright problems. I removed this paragraph and also suggested the user to take to the talk page instead which he reverted starting a WP:EDIT WAR. I reverted again, explaining him that he is engaging in edit warring right now. After this warning, he hasn't engaging in any further edit warring but has instead started personally attacking me. You clearly have a Hindutva interest, It look slike you have a hindutva agenda, Extorc is a hindu. I couldnt help but mention that the 11th edit this account made was on the article of concern while this page was semi-protected. Over the past 2 days, I have been trying meticulously to keep this page at the quality level of an ITN featured article and for now, this user is the biggest roadblock. >>> Extorc . talk  04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd still wish there was a resolution for this. >>> Extorc . talk  20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Extorc is correct in that the nytimes article didn't mention "genocide", hence, in agreement and deference, I removed it from the next edit. But that apparently wasn't satisfactory to you?
 * I move that we use the word "ethnic cleansing" instead. Would that be more satisfactory or accurate? BJP MLA calls it an ethnic cleansing Watch | Manipur Violence Is Ethnic Cleansing, Biren Singh Anti-Kuki, He Must Go: BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip (thewire.in)
 * How am I the biggest roadblock @Extorc considering you have managed to silence any dissent from me and I have completely refrained from any further edits? Nothing wrong with being a Hindutva, to each his own, but bias needs to be called out because you are ruling on a contentious issue. All I asked is to remain unbiased and have a logical conversation. I didn't know being called a Hindu is regarded as a "personal attack", if that offended you, I apologize. I personally respect Hindutva, even if i don't personally agree with the ideology. I asked you to be grounded in reality is that tantamount to a personal attack? Songangte (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Songangte
 * This is not content dispute resolution. If you want to discuss content, we can do that on the talk page of the article. "you have managed to silence any dissent from me" I haven't silenced any dissent. I warned you about WP:EDIT WARRING which barred you from making another revert otherwise, facing a ban. "I didn't know being called a Hindu is regarded as a "personal attack" The way Wikipedia defines a personal attack is Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem. So saying that I am hardly unbiased and I have an agenda when you have no evidence just because I am open about being interested in Hindutva and a Hindu is ad-hominem and when ad-hominem committed with regards to political ideology is called a personal attack. Please read WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." >>> Extorc . talk  04:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Obviously WP:NOTHERE editor. Per WP:NONAZIS, he should be blocked alone for failure to address this comment "Extorc is a Hindu as per his wiki page" as if it is something appalling. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For some reason, this post has seen no admin attention. >>> Extorc . talk  15:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "as if it is something appalling."
 * @Extorc Why do you think it is appalling to be called a Hindu? Need I remind you that Hinduism is a religion of many, like Christianity, everyone is entitled to one and there is nothing appalling about it. Please do not be under the misapprehension that it is "something appalling". Songangte (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what User:Aman.kumar.goel meant was, you said "Extorc is a Hindu" as if Extorc being a Hindu is bad. Why did you say it? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 17:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The implication is bias in the context, which is an inappropriate bad faith aspersion. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CityOfSilver @Aman.kumar.goel thanks for your attention on this. I can clarify.
 * "Extorc is a Hindu" is certainly a claim that I made. It doesn't mean its a bad thing and was certainly not intended as bad, it is simply a call to attention on their potential bias in editing, since it concerns persecuted Tribals who happen to be mostly Christian.
 * Extorc proudly displays a badge on his personal page of Hinduism. I would have hoped that he would be happy to be called a Hindu. If he takes offence, then it is on him. I personally would be proud to be called a Hindu if I were a Hindu. It is not a bad thing to be Hindu, let me make that clear if it is not.
 * If you all think I have made transgressions on my quotes  "Extorc is a Hindu" then you must prove that this is an offensive phrase, which I certainly do not think it is.  Here is an analogy: Its like calling out Democrats about their biases as they moderate a Republican actions.   Songangte (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't mean its a bad thing and was certainly not intended as bad" The entire premise of a personal attack is that the entire basis for your contention is that I am a Hindu and nothing else. Which means, this is a personal attack. "since it concerns persecuted Tribals who happen to be mostly Christian" The RS, if you'd read, clearly indicate that religious markers are not worth more than a mention. "If he takes offence, then it is on him." You fail to properly respond to the main point raised by CityOfSilver. If it was not meant to be offensive, why did you mention it, especially when the religious markers are not at all relevant in this case, the ethnic markers are. >>> Extorc . talk  18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think User:Songangte did respond to my point. "Extorc is a Hindu"...is simply a call to attention on their potential bias in editing. That's them telling other editors that your changes might be unfair not because you've exhibited bad behavior or because you're not a good editor but because you're a Hindu. And of course, Songangte saying that is plainly, outrageously racist so I'm glad they made clear that they can't be trusted to comply with the rule that says editors aren't allowed to insult others. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 18:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh Nice. I was trying to give them the benefit of doubt. But it seems, they are pretty blatant about it. >>> Extorc . talk  18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CityOfSilver Thank you for your inputs.
 * I sincerely apologize for calling @Extorc a Hindu. I was not aware that was a racist term.  Songangte (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to direct your attention towards WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. >>> Extorc . talk  19:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling someone Hindu is not racist. Saying someone might be biased because they're Hindu is racist. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that statement is not entirely true. The reason being that Hinduism is a religion and not a race, and bias based on religion is generally referred to as religious discrimination rather than racism.
 * But, if the bias against someone is based on the assumption that all people who follow Hinduism share certain characteristics or beliefs, then that can be considered stereotyping, which is a form of prejudice. Stereotyping can lead to discrimination and unfair treatment of individuals based on their religious beliefs.
 * Therefore, an accusation of racism that has been leveled against me has hurt my sentiments greatly. I take it as a personal attack.    Songangte (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So I personally attacked you for calling you racist but if I'd said you were engaging in religious discrimination, you'd have been fine with that? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 19:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CityOfSilver So you admit to attacking me personally by calling me racist? I am very offended and hurt. Let that be on record.  Songangte (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked a question first. If you answer my question, I'll answer yours. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 19:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly @CityOfSilver has lost credibility as he is engaging in personal attacks of racism. An accusation of racism is very serious and you cannot seem to grasp the correct phrase to use.   I do not wish to be abused online like this, and would like to withdraw from this conversation, which I was  hoping would remain civilized.  Songangte (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You already should have been blocked for repeatedly insisting that because another editor is Hindu, their edits might be unfair. Going forward, never do anything like that again. Comment on content, not on other editors.
 * And if you'd really like to report me for breaking the WP:NPA policy, let me know and I'll show you how to do it. You've violated it several times and I haven't personally attacked you at all. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 20:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CityOfSilver, this is way beyond the point where an admin should just grace this thread with their attention and indef. this account out of existance. >>> Extorc . talk  20:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that'll happen because they said "I shall refrain from commenting on another editor's background in any way going forward." Although it's not really my place to say because I'm not the editor they attacked, you are. This thread actually did get a brief contribution from an administrator, User:Black Kite, so maybe more administrative input is on the way. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 20:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping that this editor, after a "sincere" apology is going to behave differently. This discussion here suggests differently to me. >>> Extorc . talk  20:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They just quit. Nothing else to be done. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 20:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Songangte, you appear to still be missing the point. Commenting on another editor's background in any way (age, ethnic group, religion, etc.) to imply that their edits are biased and can't be trusted is unacceptable. Your wisest approach is to only comment on content, never about the editor. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I shall refrain from commenting on another editor's background in any way going forward.
 * I would like to thank the Wikipedia community for showing me healthy debate and logical discourse. This has been a humbling experience for me. Songangte (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you all think I have made transgressions on my quotes "Extorc is a Hindu" then you must prove that this is an offensive phrase
 * You've got it backwards. You've been told that your usage was a violation of WP:NPA, along with your unfounded accusations of bias. Knock it off. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My original. quote:
 * "It looks like you have a Hindutva agenda, to each his own, but you need to learn to dethatch your personal beliefs when the news is not what you like. When people provide reliable sources such as NYtimes, you cannot just dismiss them as "incoherent". You need to be grounded in reality."
 * Why did i say that? read on:
 * @Extorc reverted an entire segment that I added as "completely incoherent" despite it being fully sourced from reliable sources. All I wanted was an explanation for his deleting/reverting my contribution. Simply saying "completely incoherent" is subjective.  If you had explained to me the reason for reverting/deleting, logically instead of taking an unilateral decision, I would have gladly complied and added more sources etc, and hence my request for a healthy debate. I posted to the Talk page to resolve the dispute as you requested.
 * WP:BRD "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."
 * @Extorc did not adhere to this rule, and reverted it without discussion or improving or logical reasoning. Instead they simply said it is "incoherent".  @CityOfSilver what about this transgression? This is what started the dispute.  Songangte (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "It looks like you have a Hindutva agenda, to each his own, but you need to learn to dethatch your personal beliefs when the news is not what you like." This is an incredibly racist thing to say. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely appalled. >>> Extorc . talk  18:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, @Extorc I sincerely apologize for calling you Hindu and having Hindutva ideologies. If I knew that this was a racist statement, I certainly would not have said so. Mea culpa.  Songangte (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What about this is supposed to be racist? I don't see it.  --JBL (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Nazi casualdejekyll  17:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am also unclear why User:Aman.kumar.goel's use of WP:NONAZIS is acceptable here. Whilst bringing someone's ethnicity or religion into it is not really a good thing if you are insinuating that they cannot edit neutrally, that is way, way over the line. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate because it tells "Racists (and other discriminatory groups) are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia." It has a section of its own which is relevant here.
 * By persisting with his strawman and whataboutery arguments above, Songangte has only proven that he is having a very hard to time understand how he is engaging in discrimination. Though he managed to get himself renamed from "Songangte" to "Retired user 78767", but these types of actions cannot be taken as anything more credible than Richard Nixon saying in 1962 that "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more," before running for yet another election. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hindu nationalism is a thing. People editing from a Hindu nationalist POV are a problem.  Saying "I think you are editing from a Hindu nationalist POV" might or might not be accurate in any particular case but one doesn't get to magically wave it away by saying "that's racist".  --JBL (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hindu nationalism is a political ideology but that is not what Songangte targeted. He targeted the religious identity of OP as "Extorc is a Hindu as per his wiki page" to solidify his own position in a content dispute and that's how he was engaging in discrimination. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is not a sterling example of high-quality talk-page behavior, but it is very, very, very far from NONAZIS. --JBL (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No you seem to be overlooking WP:NONAZIS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No; you seem to be overlooking that NONAZIS is not about people who make a single isolated comment that conflates Hinduism with Hindu nationalism (or the same with any other -ism substituted). That goes double when the person had already apologized hours before your strained and tenuous AGF-violating second attack.  Congrats, you won, you chased someone away with these ridiculous attacks -- but it reflects very poorly on you.  --JBL (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not "a single isolated comment" since he endlessly defended it all over here. If he apologized as you say, then why he was casting aspersions as of 19:49, 12 May 2023 when he made his final comment here? That clearly settles the case against him. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk)

Persistent addition of promotional content - GEHSC/Globe Elections UN (again)
For more context, this is a continuation of the following discussions:
 * December 2019: Talk:2019 United Kingdom general_election/Archive 5
 * January 2020: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029 & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Jan 4
 * February 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Feb 4
 * March 2020: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2020 Archive Mar 6

Three years later, this person has been persistently attempting to promote this content in Wikipedia over and over again, in a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:USERG and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Today I just removed a number of such links placed in Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish presidential election, 2023 Czech presidential election, 2023 Paraguayan general election, Opinion polling for the 2022 South Korean presidential election, Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, 2022 South Korean local elections and Opinion polling for the 2019 Guatemalan general election, though I have occasionally encountered some of these in the last years. Obviously this is a problem in that it is difficult to quickly notice where and when are these links being added to articles (though ongoing & South Korean elections seem to be one their primary preference).

Involved IP accounts in the addition of this content recently are the following (though there can be many more, since they keep changing it):
 * (blocked already in 2020 for spamming the same blog in Wiki articles)
 * (possible)
 * (blocked already in 2020 for spamming the same blog in Wiki articles)
 * (possible)
 * (blocked already in 2020 for spamming the same blog in Wiki articles)
 * (possible)
 * (blocked already in 2020 for spamming the same blog in Wiki articles)
 * (possible)
 * (possible)
 * (possible)

I post this here since I'm not sure if there is any way to properly handle this, since this user keeps evading their blocks, reinserting their links and findind a way to keep spamming this even when reverted or blacklisted.  Impru 20 talk 16:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * keeps spamming this content into Opinion polling for the 2023 Turkish presidential election, despite acknowledging themselves that they have been reverted by multiple users.  Impru 20 talk 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't indef IPs, but maybe semiprotecting active elections could help? QuicoleJR (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Mosesbrazas
I noticed this edit by Mosebrazas to Barry Manilow, and started keeping an eye on their edits to BLPs. See our interaction timeline. At first, I pointed out the problems in edit summaries, but Mosesbrazas doesn't appear to read those, so I switched to talk page messages: unsourced/poorly, inserting text before ref to imply the ref sources it, unsourced again, not to use NYPOST, inserting before ref again, then a level-4 for using NYPOST on BLP again. Today also gave them a copyvio warning and deleted those edits.

Mosesbrazas doesn't appear to read their talk page either. Their only edits to their talk page have been to add sandbox-type content. Their talk page is full of warnings back to the start of their editing. They don't usually edit war, they don't argue, they just blithely add unsourced and poorly sourced content (area appears to be primarily New York politics). They seldom return to the articles they edited so perhaps the watching editors didn't notice the problems simply moved to other articles.

After today's level 4 warning for Andrew Cuomo, they returned to David Paterson (which I had reverted) to add back revised content still citing NYPOST. I'm tired of keeping an eye on every BLP they touch to clean up after them, and without any communication in 2 years, I don't know if it's lack of competence or indifference, but I think their contributions have become too problematic to continue. (Just to clarify: it isn't vandalism, just very poor editing on BLPs...tabloid stuff, lack of significance, lack of reliable sourcing...and complete refusal to communicate.) Schazjmd   (talk)  19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Refusal to communicate surely is disruptive. If Mozesbrazas doesn't reply here, a block would probably be necessary to force them onto their talk page. Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 20:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them for 24 hours for continuing as they have despite multiple final warnings since they started editing here. They continued as they had before, just 10 minutes after the most recent final warning. If after the block they continue as they have before, the next block should be for considerably longer (if not indefinite, until they agree to abide by our policies and guidelines). --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will motivate them to communicate in some way, thanks @Hammersoft. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hounding
It appears that User:M.O.X just made a couple dozen consecutive reversions of my most recent edits, pretty much all of which were obviously needed changes. Not sure how to address this, but it seems to be harassment stemming from a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation. (He clearly retaliated by just undoing all of my recent edits, including unblanking my talk page before realizing what he did and reverting it.) natemup (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The edit summary appears to be the same in all cases: "Unsourced edits". That doesn't apply for purely stylistic changes, for example or . This is a pretty obvious tell that they're reverting your edits without looking at them. Can you two hash this out on your talk pages? It doesn't seem intractable yet. Mackensen (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the OP shouldn’t need to reason with another user who is clearly hounding them due to a disagreement. The edits M.O.X. performed on the OP’s talk page are clearly way over the line. M.O.X. should have made an attempt to discuss the edits, instead they chose the route of childish vandalism. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E8D6:4C9:936A:9B63 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is problematic behavior. @Natemup made the right call by bringing it here. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mackensen, I have to agree that this appears to be retaliatory vandalism, pure and simple. I'm not sure it's the kind of thing anyone should be expected to try to deal with themselves?
 * @Natemup, for clarity can you give us the diff for a reversion he made earlier today concerning Catholic postnominals—which I rejected with an explanation? Valereee (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I made the suggestion purely on the basis that M.O.X. is a long-term editor and presumably knows better, though I don't recall encountering them before. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks like a misuse of the rollback all script to me. And, quite frankly, grounds to consider removing rollback if someone is going to use a script enabled extension of that flag like this. Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, good catch, all made the same minute. Well, I guess on the plus side it was arguably a single instance of vandalism rather than a spree, but yeah, that makes it not just vandalism but abuse of the tool. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1154382811
 * (In a separate edit, he also deleted the postnominals in the infobox, which were present from long before. I don't think I even put them there.) natemup (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This certainty seems like abuse of rollback. Admins, would removing this user's rollback privileges be an appropriate response? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would removing rollback privileges from M.O.X. be appropriate? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be justifiable, though M.O.X. hasn't edited since before this discussion opened and it would be good to hear from them. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, wait please. The "mass rollback" script has two options: "revert all" and "revert selected". But if you select a few problematic edits, then click "revert all" it will just ignore your selection and revert everything. This could be nothing more than a single misclick. M.O.X. hadn't edited for two months prior to this "incident"; perhaps they were a bit "rusty". That said; I haven't looked at many of their past edits; are there previous instances of clear hounding? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding: Apart from today they've only used rollback once since MediaWiki started tagging rollbacks circa 2017. . Only a handful of of uses of "undo". . They've barely edited in the past few years. In any case, I don't see a pattern of abuse, here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To add on, editing from a mobile has made me accidentally rollback and revert edits. The links are so close together that your phone has a mind of its own. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 20:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The combo of mobile + rollback would seem to be a particularly deadly one. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 09:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a few generations' time humans will evolve slimmer fingers to cope with such things. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, after a considerably longer period, the overpaid do-nothings at Wikimedia might fix mobile to not be a laughingstock -- if the universe doesn't run cold first. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you look at M.O.C’s ediring history, you will see that their last 10 edits before this episode go back to October 2021 — so you’ll likely be waiting a very long time for a response. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is reason enough to remove rollback now imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, there seems to be very little down-side. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Natemup, I'm probably being really dense here, but what do you think the mass-rollback was in retaliation for? You've linked to Special:Diff/1154382811 above, but that was at 03:16, 12 May. The mass-rollback took place several hours earlier, at 23:45, 11 May. What interaction did you have with M.O.X before the mass-rollback? He doesn't seem to have edited Saint Boniface at all before you. Again, I've probably missed something obvious, but "retaliation" is a very serious claim (compared with sloppiness) and we need be to be sure to get the timeline right. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the correct diff. He reverted what I presume he thought was an undue edit on my part, and then came the cascade. I don't recall any recent interactions before that. I've had other hounders, though. natemup (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But that's M.O.X reverting you. Again, "retaliation" implies you reverted one of their edits first, and they decided to "get back" at you by blindly reverting all your edits. Seeing one (perceived) problematic edit from an editor, then going to their contribs, and reverting all the other (again, perceived) problematic edits is not retaliation. If he intended to revert all those other unrelated edits, then it is hounding, yes. But do we really know that was intentional? M.O.X should, when they return to editing, apologize, at least. But I don't see any malice here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion above (and the other diffs) makes clear the cascade had nothing to do with my edits being problematic. He blindly reverted everything—including my talk page—with the same edit summary that had nothing to do with the edits. He then undid the talk page edit alone, realizing his mistake, which implies that he intentionally made the other blanket reversions. natemup (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You may be right; I don't know. In the end it was a single click, and without reading M.O.X's mind, we don't know if it was a mis-click. Yes, it was wrong for M.O.X to not clean up the whole mess afterwards; I'm not suggesting he is 100% blameless. At least, M.O.X should be warned about taking responsibility for any edits made with automated tools. To be clear, I am not suggesting you did anything wrong by coming here; there are just some words being thrown around, like "vandalism" that are over the top, IMO. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it was a misclick, editors are still fully responsible for the edits they make with tools, and the lack of correction or comment from User:M.O.X indicates that removal of rollback is probably the best course of action, especially when this is only 1 out of the 2 uses of rollback since 2017. Rollback isn't being used by this editor and aside from this one use, the one time it was used was problematic, so the removal of that right isn't going to be a detriment or cause any change to their editing. - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I will make comment here as I was not hounding the user. I used a script and selected two edits. It didn’t revert the edits selected in the script as one was not a live edit: that to the article Pope Francis. The article for St Boniface was the only article I intended to revert. I didn’t notice that the edits reverted went beyond that and I confess I should have checked that, that is my fault and I apologise. When I said unsourced edits for St Boniface, that was perhaps not clear enough. Based on the text within the body of the article, it isn’t clear that he definitely belonged to the Order of St Benedict.

I assure everyone here and the OP that I harbour no vendetta and that it was a sincere mistake which I didn’t catch until being notified by all the pings. Given that, I will refrain from use of scripts (I didn’t use the rollback function as such) unless and until I run tests on a sandbox or test article. I also would like apologise again for any hurt caused by this mistake on my part. I will make sure to check my contributions page clearly as well to ensure that I can remedy or catch any such mistakes in the future.

I reverted the talk page undo as that was the only edit I noticed which was not related to the articles in question. It was an unfortunate lapse in judgment. I apologise for all the distress and trouble it caused.  James  ( T •  C ) • : • 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the delay between edits and my reply here, I have been presently occupied with my responsibilities at work which prevented me from replying within a reasonable timeframe.  James  ( T •  C ) • : • 10:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. 👌🏾 natemup (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think given the explanation and apology this can be closed without any further action. - Aoidh (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent pageant problems
This is about restoring unreferenced and non-MOS-compliant content at a beauty pageant article covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. The article is Puteri Indonesia 2023.

There have been several problem editors in the pageants space which I have reported here at ANI. The latest one is, who I warned about this issue, and then they deliberately restored unreferenced and non-MOS-compliant content for a second time.

By the way, I asked about the sub-national flags at the MOS talk some time ago, and it was confirmed that there's no exception to the consensus for beauty pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is also an unresolved SPI case that I opened in April concerning accounts that are hyper-active in this same space. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GS/PAGEANT would likely need to be used here I'm thinking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to mention that HiChrisBoyleHere does not exclusively edit in that topic. A topic ban may be all that is needed here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User Baratiiman
Spam posting Iranian state news to Portal:Current events over a prolonged period of time. Multiple warnings and blocks regarding the issue. Latest edit done today, I think it is time for a permanent block. Ecrusized (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support indef block. He's clearly editing in bad faith. Enough is enough. Din  oz1  (chat?) 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Too many warnings, much bad faith when I looked in his contributions, and looks like the 1 week block wasn't enough. About time for an indef. <b style="color:#ff6600;">TheCorvetteZR1</b><b style="color:#0a0a0a;">(The Garage)</b> 12:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a global/cross-wiki ban or lock? Baratiiman is causing cross-wiki vandalism, specifially on the Persian wiki. Din  oz1  (chat?) 13:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide evidence of this cross-wiki vandalism, so I don't have to take your word for it? Would make commenting on this thread much easier for me and the admins. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was about to link the block log on the Persian Wiki. https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%98%D9%87:%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7/block&page=User%3ABaratiiman Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As one of his blocks is for abusing multiple accounts, I assume he's clearly WP:NOTHERE. Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not good, and the user is certainly being disruptive on the Persian Wikipedia. However, they may still be a good contributor on the English Wikipedia, as they are separate entities. However, if more evidence is provided, they may need to be blocked. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that may not be the case, because ever since Baratiiman's last block, he ranked up over 15 AN/I notices and warnings in total. Din  oz1  (chat?) 16:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A lot of accusations in this thread so far... and not much in the way of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this isn't "Requests for an admin to do the legwork".  And given the extent of this editor's block log is one week long partial block for edit warring, I'm very suspicious of this whole thread. Courcelles (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that the editor appears to be making several productive edits, and does not look like an editor that needs to be indeffed. The only apparent problem seems to be a misunderstanding around Portal:Current events, and even that does not look too bad upon first inspection. I would most certainly oppose a block at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment The block on the Persian Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts may be enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a CheckUser investigation. I do not currently endorse a block, I am just making a statement. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support investigation. Din  oz1  (chat?) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . A block a few years ago on another project, one without checkusers, isn't going to be enough. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. I will admit that CheckUser is a blind spot in my knowledge of policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If no other reason for not checking applied, there would still be the fact that CU can only see back 90 days. So unless you had reasonable suspicion something untoward was going on on this wiki within the last 3 months, there's nothing to look at. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try to remember that. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Please consider blocking. Yilloslime (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked. For future reference, you can report obvious vandals at WP:AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

2603:9001:300:81A:20A5:F2A2:2288:F451
Antisemitic comment in Talk:Battle of Bakhmut JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Dealt with. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation request for 181.64.36.107
Based on 's to their talk page  — and, for that matter — getting blocked, the chances of them making any reasonable unblock request are zero at most. TPA revocation seems warranted.  WC  Quidditch  ☎   ✎  17:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently simply for notifying them of this discussion.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Where to start wp:nothere
The user seems to be a not-here account that is edit-warring, making PA's [] (and threats to block evade) and Bizare legal threats []. Seemingly to POV push. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Note the blatant threat to block evade tells me they need a range ban. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

User avoiding to talk with me
The User:Yswj700 is avoiding to talk at the talk page of Victoria (Gallic Empire) with me.

I told him about the talk page on my user talk page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Acolex2?markasread=281480567&markasreadwiki=enwiki

I also told him about the talk page on his user talk page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yswj700

I told him about the talk page in the Page history of Victoria (Gallic Empire) several times.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Victoria_(Gallic_Empire)

But he never join the talk, only doing "revert" Acolex2 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Acolex2 and @Yswj700 You both look to be edit warring, which is a no no. I further note that Acolex2 made the first edit here, which was subsequently reverted by Yswj700. At this point WP:BRD applies and everything should have moved to the talk page. Please stop the edit warring and discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What should I do if he continues not to join the talk? Acolex2 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Acolex2 There are a list of steps and options for handling content disputes at WP:DR. You can always post a nuetrally worded request for opinions from other experienced editors on the talk pages of any relevant wiki-project. That said, reverting an edit and then refusing to discuss it, is not helpful behavior. But bear in mind that most editors' lives don't revolve around Wikipedia. People have things to do in the real world and some time should be given to respond. Courtesy ping @Yswj700. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Acolex2 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

AI generated articles, major BLP issues
Hi there, two articles were recently created by @BreadSuperFan36, Presidency of Mary McAleese and Presidency of Michael D. Higgins. These articles show clear signs of being AI generated, the most obvious being that every single source is fictional. I am about to nominate both for speedy deletion, but think the user / IP should be banned. Xx78900 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Xx78900: can you be more specific here? Why do you think these articles are AI-generated? Which sources are fictional? I've checked a few of them, and they're all correct. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve just done the same. There are a couple that aren’t very good, but they all seem to work. They’ve got old access-dates, but that’s a symptom of the text having been copy and pasted whole from the ‘parent’ articles of the subjects at hand. That’s suboptimal, but not a sign of AI, nor a criterion for speedy deletion (the copying is attributed in edit summaries in the article histories). — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 23:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the attribution in Higgin's article so I went ahead and added it. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 23:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Ingenuity I'm not sure what happened here, definitely some issue on my end. Last night when I followed the links none of them worked for me, but they're working for me now. Apologies, I have no idea why that happened. Xx78900 (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are so many issues with this report I don't even know where to begin. First, you did not notify BreadSuperFan36 of this discussion as you are required to; I have done this for you. Secondly, how did you come to the conclusion this is AI-generated or that ? A spot-check of the sources show they appear to verify the information they are citing. And thirdly, the text clearly does not resemble AI generated text, especially considering the text was written into other articles pre-dating LLM by several years (GPTZero, albeit a flawed program, also clears the text). Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7 I definitely made a mistake here. Not sure why, but last night none of the links worked for me, kept bringing me to pages that didn't exist on archive.org. They work just fine this morning. Also I thought the @ symbol pinged people, my apologies. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! Xx78900 (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging, who accepted both articles for AFC, into this conversation. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

PBLOCK request
Someone using this range has some issues on the linked page. A pblock for the /36 should greatly reduce the amount of reverting that has to be done on that page. They've been at it for a while, and don't seem to be getting the point. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh my god. That's a lot of reverting. Since it's been going on for quite a long time, I've requested temporary page protection. I'm surprised they haven't been blocked before, considering their constant disruptive edits on a variety of pages. therefore, I support the PBLOCK. Din  oz1  (chat?) 13:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Rapid fire date changes
Anjalijk is a new user who recently started adding commas to European-style dates. For example, diff 1 and 2. I asked them to stop and pointed them to MOS:DATES but maybe they can't see it? In any case, they're making these changes at the rate of one every few minutes. Could we temporarily block them until they communicate? Woodroar (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * They've now replied at their user talk page, so hopefully they'll stop now. Woodroar (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They've stopped since you left a message on their talk page. Considering that was the only warning you gave him, you should wait for a bit before requesting a block. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They stopped after the ANI notification, yes. But they made 14 more date changes after my initial message. Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, I recommend you to assume good faith. The user likely ignored the message. Now that they've stopped and replied, it was likely they didn't mean any harm to the Wiki. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They made 5 additional date edits since acknowledging the message. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 14:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Darn it. Guess it's time to pull out ol' user warnings! Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and they've proceeded to ignore the message and have gone straight back to adding more commas... 192.76.8.64 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe a block, at least a page block, would be appropriate at this time. Woodroar (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll give them more warnings if they continue. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the disruptive edits are over, now that he's apologized and said he understood MOS:DATES. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted all edits that didn't conform with MOS:DATES. The only ones weren't undone were ReactOS and RW Ursae Minoris as the article's origins aren't clear. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User 42.106.189.174
User appeared today - I noticed something odd about additions to Adoption and reported a copyright violation. There was also partial duplication of a 'further reading' list added in to the list, breaking formatting. I checked the user's contributions - they consist of unhelpful additions, some of which also look like further copyright violations (and in following one of those, on Intrusion Detection Systems, one source of copy appears on several different web pages starting with a string of random letters [dot] goldensmith [dot] top, which now also appears on a "McAfee anti-virus warning" popup I'm getting - I do not have McAfee installed!) Additions to other pages include 'further reading' which is inserted randomly into existing lists (sometimes breaking templates), additions to essays on how to become an admin (!), etc. This behaviour, for a new user, is odd, to say the least. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing. Given 72 hours off to at least prevent more problems. Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Further to this, after failing to clean my machine by removing a likely cookie and doing a quick google, I found this at https://www.myantispyware.com/2023/05/18/goldensmith-top-virus-removal-guide/, so may be a deliberate attempt to spread malware: <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Usernamekiran
I obsvering User:Usernamekiran for a lot many days. He is not Admin but he pretends and behaves like Admin. He scares other Users and he makes users block that he don't like. Because of him experienced users like User:Celestina007 and User:Venkat TL stopped wikipedia. He never edits articles. He always tries to block users on Admin noticeboard. Now he is trying to block serial number. Please block Usernamekiran or he will block more users. 2409:4081:E01:4863:0:0:A249:3201 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific examples of misconduct from this user? A cursory glance through their edits doesn't reveal anything. There's nothing inherently bad about spending time on talk pages, userspaces, or noticeboards. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czello This is an obvious case for BOOMERANG -Lemonaka‎  10:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to respond to this. But to put everything in short: I never pretended to be admin. I always try to be polite, and helpful. I definitely do not scare other editors. Currently, I am not adding much content — mostly gnoming, or technical edits. I often visit PERM, and other noticeboards, and give my opinion if I know the scenario/situation, or the editor in discussion. I am not watching this thread, but if my response is needed, then kindly ping me. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This complaint is without merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * would it be okay to simply remove this complaint (blanking)? I would have boldly removed a meritless complaint if it was about some other editor. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that should be left to an uninvolved admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Basombrio 2.0
Well, I attempted to assume good faith, but has been continuing disruptive edits. They have already been brought to this board before by, but no resolution occurred. So, not only have they consistently disregarded warnings on edit warring[1 ][2 ][3 ][4 ][5 ], single-purpose account activity,[6 ], canvassing[7 ] and POV pushing violations [8 ][9 ][10 ], they have now assumed a username similar to mine. It is obvious that we have a case of WP:NOTHERE and I am recommending a block for a period that can be decided agreed upon by other users and administrators. WMrapids (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Block and don't look back.—Alalch E. 20:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The new username is alone worth blocking. Any disruptive editing just makes the issue worse. Indef them. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I usually don't advocate for an indefinite block because I'm hopeful for users, but I agree in this case since they seem to be taking edits personally and especially because of WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The impersonation is my main issue, the other stuff just cements it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That global rename needs to be undone, stat. It's nothing but a form of harassment.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. That username change is completely inappropriate (not even counting their other behaviour). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure why AN/I is so heavily clerked; a block is not always the end of the discussion and leaving a thread open for a bit will keep it from being fractured if there are addition issues that need addressing. There are times when I've gone to add a checkuser result or further pertinent info to a discussion to find it closed within minutes of a block. In this specific case, is anyone aware of the best way to have the rename undone? It was clearly done to harass .-- Ponyo bons mots 21:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for closing it early, Ponyo. I figured that when a remedy happened, the discussion was over 9 times out of 10. Also, discussions closing mean admins can more was find other, open discussions. I am sorry for the inconvenience. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it was a good faith closure (and you weren't the first to do so). It's just irksome, which is why we don't have designated AN/I Clerks despite it being somewhat of a perennially proposed on the talk page.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, because that was going to be a question I wanted to raise regarding the similar username. Speaking of CheckUser, has there been any mention of associated accounts in the past? There has been persistent abuse of socks on Peru-related articles, so we want to be safe with that (or on top of any accounts that come from nowhere).--WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think this is a sock of a specific master, an SPI should be started. Checkusers can't really check accounts unless there is evidence of abuse of multiple accounts.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked the global renamer about undoing the rename.—Alalch E. 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be worth posting a request at SR/U? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will indeed be the correct thing to do if the global renamer who had handled this doesn't respond in a few days.—Alalch E. 17:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yilian Wong sending threatening email

 * Falun Gong
 * Li Hongzhi
 * Li Hongzhi

sent me an email saying that I should be respectful in my Wikipedia editing of the Falun Gong topic and its leader Li Hongzhi, and that people who were not respectful in the past received retribution of various sorts including death.

Yilian Wong also left this same message at the Li Hongzhi talk page and on several user talk pages. The conclusion offered by Yilian Wong is that "for example, you will suffer different degrees of retribution due to the different severity and consequences of your slander of Dafa and Mr. Li Hongzhi, such as bad fortune, or suffering from diseases of different severity, or even death"

I don't think this person should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like WP:NOTTHERE to me. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 19:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And remove access to email users if possible. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 19:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a cult + suffer existential paranormal retribution for your defiance of our totally not a cult leader is certainly an interesting mix. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What a nice individual. Certainly should be indeffed and email privileges removed. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed and removed email and talk. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block by . I was about to do it myself but took too much time reading the "letter"  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do I feel that this is a troll and not a genuine falun gong practioner as they claim to be. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * New Zealand journalism scholar Heather Kavan writes about how Falun Gong practitioners do this kind of stuff regularly. I don't have any doubt we are dealing with a true believer. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah IMO a Joe Job would do things that were patently offensive instead of laughable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why it looked like a spam bot to me? Does anyone want to make a request on Srg to request a global lock? -Lemonaka‎  23:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Cawseases
User:Cawseases has been given two level four warnings today and multiple other warnings in the past for persistently making inappropriate political, soapboxy POV edits on Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George Floyd protests and other pages, then arguing about it in the talk page and in the user talk space. Example problem edits are here, here, here, here, here and here, here. Kire1975 (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

BMD Star disruptive behaviour despite previous final warnings
BMD Star appears to be NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia with their edits demonstrating a pattern of being solely aimed at promoting Islam Puth (a singer of very little notability?) as evidenced by their contribution history. Despite multiple warnings from various editors, they appear to still be making the same edits over and over again to different articles. (Example edits: 1152123106, Draft:Islam_Puth, 1152122246 and 1156047753). -- Sohom Datta (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record, I just blocked some ✅ socks, and .  This bears future watching. Courcelles (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

LilianaUwU
This report is in regards to I cannot notify the user of this notice as their page is protected. If someone can do it for me, I would appreciate it.

I asked early this morning to have an article put up for AfD. This user went and closed the discussion at AfD on the same day it was opened saying it was a snow keep and it was opened in bad faith, when in fact, this user was on the fence about it they met the requirements to meet WP:BIO and WP:NOTABLE. Some discussion was held however my understanding is Snow is not a policy but IAR may be from forum discussions and I have seen and been involved in through central discussions. This is not up to a non-admin user to do, especially since it’s the same person who opened it on my behalf. Articles for deletion/Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò.

I still feel strongly the biography is meeting requirements. Thanks! 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of this discussion. No need to warn me. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As for your concerns: a bunch of sources were found in the short time this AfD existed (and I opened it on your behalf, assuming good faith) - so the notability concern is no more. As for your original question, of whether the article was created to "promote their website" - why would such an estabilished editor as Buidhe do that? I feel like the user who made Armenian genocide a featured article knows what they're doing at least somewhat when creating a new article. Granted, the closing was a bit hasty, but you've been acting in bad faith all this time. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic is obviously notable. The AfD close would still be a keep if left open 7 days, so it seems like a waste of time to reopen it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As I said, I acted in good faith and got an ANI report in return. (By the way, for those watching at home, the broken link above should link to Articles for deletion/Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò.) Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the link. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I absolutely have not been acting in bad faith. I have countered the arguments presented earlier in the discussions and then I came back to follow up and saw you closed it as a non-admin without a policy and casting aspirations against me by saying I’m acting in bad faith? That’s the farthest from the truth. If other sources were found and put it, then that is fine. It doesn’t matter who created the article or why, it is about the content which is what I judged my decision on before I did WP:BEFORE and I did not find anything other than a bunch of sites mentioning him as a professor and unknown blogs doing interviews. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I got no hard feelings towards you, IP. But I really feel like I've been roped into something I didn't wanna get involved in because I wanted to be nice and help out. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @LilianaUwU I went through the article just now. There are references that are much better and shows he meets the criteria. A lot of people do not have access to the library due to their limits. Had all of these or even a couple of them been there other than the 4 or 5 originally of which most pointed to his announcement as a professor I would not have asked for nomination. No hard feelings here either. This is why we have discussions and allow them to run more than 12 hours to work things out but since you closed it so fast under a non-policy closure, that alarms me. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mainly do anti-vandalism work, so I didn't bother applying for the library. I keep forgetting that's even a thing - hence my (admittedly bad) aspersion of bad faith. Sorry for that. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD all I used to find reviews was Google. There were reviews of his first book in, among others, Mind, Ethics, Philosophical Quarterly (those first three are major philosophy journals), Race & Class, and Bookforum. His second book was reviewed in, among others, The New Yorker, Jacobin, The Point Magazine, and the European Journal of Social Theory. No library access was necessary.
 * If you couldn't find any of these articles when doing WP:BEFORE you should not do deletion nominations. Furthermore, you need to understand that for notability, sources do not need to be in the article to show notability, they merely need to exist. Jahaza (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jahaza This ANI was about actions by the user. The debate is over about the sources. However, I will say you are incorrect in stating they do not have to be on the article. If you are going to write a BLP and have 5 references of which 3 only show he is a professor then yes, I have every right to nominate it. Some of the references, as I stated earlier are fine, but some you introduced include having to have a paid subscription (The Friend) which I would not really find trust worthy as a source. The others are on sites that give an assessment and try to get you to buy the book. I do not consider those bona-fide reviews of books if they are promoting the sale of it. But again, this was about something else completely. It has been addressed and an admin can close it if @LilianaUwU is ok with that. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean... if you're fine with me doing another involved close... just kidding, of course. Yeah, seems like the discussion is over, and I'm fine with it being closed. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 03:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok have at ;) You can snow close it lol. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues issues in one deletion discussion
There seemed to be an issue with this deletion discussion. The contributions made were constructive however User:Aoidh has pointed out they were made by an alt account:

Articles_for_deletion/Charity_Majors

The article is about the coworker of User:lizthegrey which has been posted for deletion discussion earlier this week, though now I believe enough sources are now present for the article to be kept.

During the discussion process, the alt account Love The Andes has created a redirect to salvage the previous article. I believe User:Love The Andes is a recruit of User:lizthegrey since the interaction tool gives:.

User:lizthegrey says this account is completely out of the blue in the following edit but this does not correspond to the interaction pattern.

Later there was an investigation filed by User:lizthegrey against a random banned user User:SquareInARoundHole at, where she prompted me weirdly enough to file an investigation against herself. I do not believe this falls in the SPI discussion so I have filed it in the general incidents.

Also I think there seems to be an overall issue too with WP:COI in this discussion Adler3 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn in favor of SPI. See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My COI is declared and I only edit under this one account. I truthfully, genuinely, have no idea who User:Love The Andes is (aside from a suspicion that they might be User:SquareInARoundHole), and have tried to do diligence to determine whether it's anyone associated with me or my company, and made clear that I expect anyone working with me to abide by the Wikimedia Foundation terms of service if they are going to be editing articles in spaces related to the company and its employees.
 * Boomerang -- you're a brand new account, and you're very actively participating at AfD and taking issues to ANI, in cases where uninvolved admins have chosen not to levy accusations. Have you edited under another account before? Lizthegrey (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No Adler3 (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have filed it also in Sockpuppet_investigations/Lizthegrey now. Adler3 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. That is the correct venue for this, not ANI. ANI is for chronic and intractable, or otherwise urgent issues that have no other place. I urge you to withdraw from ANI and let the checkusers and SPI admins do their job. Lizthegrey (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you remove a discussion aside from blanking it Adler3 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strike it out with . Lizthegrey (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OP blocked as a sock. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

DigitalMannat
User:DigitalMannat has serious WP:CIR issues, mainly in their use of "we" and a plethora of unencyclopaedic tone, but I don't know which warning to use. If I use the unsourced warning, it still doesn't address their lack of editing skills. I don't think WP:NOTHERE applies, as their edits are all in good faith. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any use of we in the edit summaries. Also, I notified the user of this ANI posting., you are required to notify people if you start a discussion about them.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for forgetting to notify the user. It's been a while since I've posted at ANI, and I was rushing a bit with other tasks. Will be more attentive in future. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in edit summaries; "we" in edits. In their most recent edits: Fortive, List of water-related charities, R. K. Joshi, Life satisfaction - I stopped there. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Three of those four look to me like they were copy-pasted from somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fortive is a copyvio from here. Water-related is a bad paraphrase of this site. Joshi is a bad paraphrase from here. Life satisfaction is a copyvio from here. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking through other edits, we're got a sentence in The Infinite Mind that's a copy and paste from here, and the addition to Jet engine performance is a copyvio from here. The image additions, on Commons, are no better. This needs a mass revert on general principles. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps refer this to WP:CCI? 192.76.8.64 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting a CCI for someone with 39 edits that are all obvious copyvio isn't a good use of editor time. Just revert and WP:RD1 them all. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 04:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All of their edits seem to be copyvios, this edit is copied from http://designindia.net/thoughts/people/teachers/prof_r_k_joshi this edit  is copied from https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node85.html this edit  is copied from https://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-526-028pc2v51r. 192.76.8.64 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked the editor from mainspace and draftspace for copyright violations and disruptive editing. Maybe that will get them to start communicating. Spicy (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Major book spamming/promotional push by Herbertrogers67
The main article is Muhammad the World-Changer: An Intimate Portrait, but has been adding links to many other articles. Additionally, a lot of other WP:SPA accounts are editing only at this article, so it looks like sockpuppet or coordinated meatpuppet activity. Requesting reversion of the dozens of plugs for the book throughout Wikipedia, and whatever sanctions are most appropriate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just some FYI notes to add to the above:
 * I already posted an SPI earlier today about these users (here). A clerk has not had time to respond yet, though, so we'll see. Either way, the activity around this is suspicious, given the 8 single-purpose accounts creating and editing the same article in just 4 days.
 * As you can see from their user talk page here (before they blanked it), Herbertrogers67 denied any connection to these other accounts and denied any relation to the author of the book they've been ref-spamming.
 * At Talk:Mecca they recently claimed here that their edits were in response to "a note about having the article connect to others", which I assume means the orphan tag added to the Muhammad World-Changer article here. However, even before that orphan tag was added, they had already inserted dubious/redundant citations to this same book in no less than 15 articles:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * Many of their edits have involved additional unsourced changes or replacing sourced information with different information attributed to this new book, so even if they weren't promotional, these edits would still be problematic.
 * It's rather difficult to explain this behaviour without some kind of WP:COI involved. R Prazeres (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Let me play devil's advocate for some of these edits. This book has been positively reviewed and likely has a lot of useful content. Herbertrogers67 is adding both the book to "Further reading" sections as well as adding citations and materials to articles. It's possible that we have an enthusiastic reader and editor who's fired up to add what he's learned from the book to our articles. I've done this sort of thing myself (on a much smaller scale) after reading a particularly good book or article.


 * I believe the other accounts are almost certainly have a COI.


 * Recommendations:
 * The best way to determine GOODFAITH is to run a checkuser on all these accounts.
 * I suspect some are related; perhaps Herbertrogers67 isn't.
 * I suggest looking at the quality of Herbertrogers67's edits adding citations and content (other than "further reading").
 * Continue removing "Further reading" additions but none of the other content additions for now. I did a few; looking at "What Links Here" for Muhammad the World-Changer: An Intimate Portrait, there are many more to go.


 * I don't have time now to work anymore on this one.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work and attention on this already. I plan to go through their edits when I have time and/or when the SPI is hopefully concluded, if others haven't by then. If some of their edits merely added sourced information without altering other sourced content (and assuming no other problems), it would be logical to leave them. But edits that modified/removed previous sourced content in favour of claims attributed to Jebara are almost certainly not appropriate. The book may be good on its own merits, but as I mentioned elsewhere it does not appear to be an academic historian's work and is written from a certain perspective (e.g. as noted by this review and this scholar's review). For WP:RS purposes, it should be treated with caution. R Prazeres (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All have been blocked . Per the rationale for reporting here, any and all attempts to spam at dozens of articles can be subject to removal. Going forward, it might be wise to watch for new socks looking to evade the blocks to further promote the book. Thanks for the SPI report, and for the attention to this. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also generally keep an eye out for edits promoting the author Mohamad Jebara or his other book, The Life of the Qur’an: From Eternal Roots to Enduring Legacy. Now that I'm going through Herbertrogers67's edits, I've noticed some which are clearly and unduly promoting the author, not just the book . Thanks again to everyone for your comments and help. R Prazeres (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: I think I've now finished reverting all their undue edits. R Prazeres (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

77.56.54.159 and ad hominem
's edit on Special:Diff/1156245813 and Special:Diff/1156247136 are obvious against WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. Does any sysop want to have a look on these ordures? -Lemonaka‎ 00:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 falsely tagged my article, but also he removed my messages to his talk page and ignored them, this is about 2 things, he also banned me from his talk page so I cannot notify him.
He tagged Superfy for speedy deletion without any valid reason or evidence. The article is not unambiguously promotional or spam, but a factual and neutral description of a notable software product. I have provided reliable sources and a neutral tone to support my claim. He has misapplied the criterion and acted in bad faith. He tagged Superfy for speedy deletion without notifying me or other significant contributors. According to the Wikipedia guideline on WP:CSD, he should have notified the creator or other significant contributors using the appropriate templates. He failed to do so. . According to the Wikipedia guideline on WP:CSD, he should not tag an article for speedy deletion if there is any doubt about its eligibility. He should have used another deletion process, such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD, or discussed the issue with me or other editors. He did not do so. He tagged Superfy for speedy deletion without disclosing any conflict of interest or personal grudge. According to the Wikipedia guideline on WP:CSD, he should not tag an article for speedy deletion if he has a conflict of interest or a personal grudge against the subject or the creator. He should have recused himself from the decision or declared his bias. He did not do so. He deleted my messages on his talk page without any valid reason or explanation. According to the Wikipedia policy on WP:TPG, he should not remove comments from his talk page unless they are blatant vandalism, personal attacks, harassment, or violations of the WP:BLP policy. He should also not remove comments from his talk page that are part of an ongoing discussion or dispute resolution. He should also not remove comments from his talk page that are relevant to his actions as an administrator or that request an explanation for his actions. He violated all of these principles by removing my messages. I request that Bbb23’s actions be reviewed and reversed by another administrator. I also request that Bbb23 be warned or sanctioned for his misconduct. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. --DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article indeed was spam and was deleted as such. Also, per WP:BLANKING, they have the right to remove comments from their talk page that are NOT declined current unblock requests. I would suggest you let this matter drop now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * My goodness. First off, it appears that Bbb23 was attempting to take the discussion off of their own talk page and put it onto yours. There is no violation of WP:TPG, the conversation was just relocated. You insisted on undoing this, repeatedly, hence the page ban.
 * Second, IMO the article is unambiguously promotional in nature. There are only 3 citations, one is to a press release (unusable, 2 is to techradar.com (but the URL does not exist), the 3rd is to appadevice.com, whatever that is. Some sort of front end before you get to the Apple Store. Zaathras (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to 'You state that Bbb23 tagged Superfy for speedy deletion without notifying me or other significant contributors., but Bbb23 did notify you here', as I deleted that when I realised he notified me, and he was just simply ignoring my comments on his talk page, not trying to take it to mine, as he deletes them and I have to send 3 more messages that he deletes before he comes to my talk page. DarklarkOxs (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You state that Bbb23 tagged Superfy for speedy deletion without notifying me or other significant contributors., but Bbb23 did notify you here, and in fact you responded to him at length. You write that According to the Wikipedia policy on WP:TPG, he should not remove comments from his talk page unless they are blatant vandalism, personal attacks, harassment, or violations of the WP:BLP policy, but policy actually says the exact opposite. Over at Talk:Superfy, you argued that The article follows the Wikipedia criteria for writing a video game article, such as using the template, providing a summary, describing the gameplay and features, and reporting the reception and ratings, even though the article is not about a video game and says nothing about the "gameplay". Are you using a WP:LLM to write these comments? The only other plausible explanation for these factual errors is that you are deliberately being dishonest. Spicy (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spicy It certainly looks like LLM output. This comment with the "here are some points to support the claim" formatting looks just like the stuff ChatGPT writes.
 * I'm also concerned with what appears to be "revenge tagging" of other articles for speedy deletion under critera that blatantly do not apply . 192.76.8.94 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spicy They appear to now be mass nominating articles for deletion based on feeding the text of the article through some LLM. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not use a LLM, or any AI/language model, I just think carefully what to write when writing important sentences. DarklarkOxs (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Why are your nominations written in the second person, as if a response to a question . Phrases like or  have obviously come out of you asking ChatGPT to come up with a reason why the article should be deleted. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The language and style of your AfD nominations as compared to the run-on word salad that is your opening complaint in this very section is like night and day, my friend. Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So did you think carefully before invoking the clearly irrelevant WP:ENT at Articles for deletion/Rider Game? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I speedied and salted the Superfy article, and left a longer explanation for the deletion on DarklarkOxs's talkpage (before I saw this ANI report) to try to prevent such probleblematic creations in the future. Suggest that this ANI report be closed early since any continuation can only result in WP:BOOMERANG-sanctions, which are best avoided if possible. Abecedare (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are often best avoided, but why should we not block this particular user? They are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, having observed the surreal events of the last hour, I certainly agree! Still don't know whether all that was incompetence, trolling, or LLM-aided social experiment but it could end no other way except an indef. Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * DarklarkOxs has now nominated North of England cricket team and Troy Trepanier for deletion, and there is a concern that the deletion rationales are ChatGPT-penned. The latter is a single-sourced BLP though, so they technically may have landed on a plausible deletion candidate there. Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the user needs to be indeffed, but I don't believe I should be the one to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. DE, NOTHERE. Either… and really both. Courcelles (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn,, I take a little nap and you cause all this carnage? For someone so eloquent in quoting policy at others, you sure made a hash of this. I did reach out, but instead of taking a breath and heeding my advice or asking me, you went on a rampage. SMDH. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Huey Long
has engaged in a concerning pattern of behavior at the article for Huey Long, a high-importance featured article. Longstanding consensus at the article is to describe Long as a "left-wing populist". This has been reinforced by multiple discussions; these discussions uniformly concluded that, based on reliable sources (including several books, academic literature, encyclopedias, and reliable news sources) this is the best description for Long. has since single-handedly attempted to remove this longstanding, years-long consensus. On the talk, they have engaged in a Gish gallop of general nonsense, mostly long rants about specific aspects of Long's political philosophy. More concerningly, the cited sources include "American Greatness" (a pro-Trump internet blog most notable for defending basically anything Trump has ever said or done) and "The Cross and Flag", a newsletter and website run in honor of Gerald L. K. Smith, a prominent anti-semite and white nationalist. Content on this website, among other things, includes virulent, antisemitic screeds and condemnation of race-mixing and integration. also referred to me as a "leftist" (something I am, funnily enough, not), which demonstrates a battleground mentality.

It's abundantly clear that is a single-purpose account attempting to impose a certain view of Long, one rejected by reliable sources and consensus. This account seems to exist only for this purpose. Given their behavior, cited sources, and clear battleground mentality, it would probably be best if they were removed from this topic area. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like has protected the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While a rollback to the consensus version would be preferable, this is a start. However, this doesn't address the behavior of, or the specific concerns over patently unacceptable and bigoted sources. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to address this issue with that semi-protection. Just the general level of nonsense I saw in the history. If nothing else, HueyLong1893 is autoconfirmed, so it didn't revoke his ability to edit the article. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * > years-long consensus
 * He was just a populist on the site all the time, neither left nor right. Calm down You deliberately changed it a year ago of your own free will without the consent of other community members. Before your intervention, he was always a populist without indicating a left or right bias. From Wikipedia article about Huey : Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology.[223][224] His platform has been compared to ideologies ranging from McCarthyism to European Fascism and Stalinism.[225] When asked about his own philosophy, Long simply replied: "Oh, hell, say that I'm sui generis and let it go at that."[21] Robert Penn Warren described him as a "remarkable set of contradictions".[199].
 * >The Cross and Flag", a newsletter and website run in honor of Gerald L. K. Smith
 * But Gerald L.K. Smith was the closer Huey Long supporter. HueyLong1893 (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Calm down You deliberately changed it a year ago of your own free will without the consent of other community members." See WP:CALMDOWN. Additionally, see WP:BOLD. There is no need for "consent" because nobody owns the article. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also note that previous discussions uniformly agreed to this language in the lead based on reliable sourcing on the matter. It might certainly be worth revisiting this consensus, of course. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those discussions featured 3 and 4 contributors, respectively (two of which are the same to each), so don't carry much weight from a consensus point of view. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Friend, before you changed, there was a consensus that he was JUST A POPULIST. Without bias to the left or right spectrum. I just asked to return it to its original appearance. You're throwing a tantrum here HueyLong1893 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I protected the article due to a long-running series of IP's making similar edits. This is why AP2 was better at 1932... because if there was that option this edit would be worth a topic ban.  HueyLong1893, if you don't learn not to post that kind of stuff, your editing privileges will not last. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I I refer to sound logic and to the wiki article itself. It says that academics have not fully reached a decision on the views of Huey Long. That's why I suggested leaving him just a populist, without a bias to the right or left wing. He was just a populist until March 2022, until Toa Nidhiki05  changed it HueyLong1893 (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If AP had stayed at 1932 the OP would not have been able to even post this request, as they are also AP topic-banned. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, my position is: let's just leave Long as a populist, without a bias to the left wing or the right. As it was before the Toa editorial board, in 21 and before that HueyLong1893 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that HueyLong1893 be indeffed on the basis of WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, in the same way we'd indef a user named "HitlerFan18". Long was a virulent and unapologetic racist. Despite the ongoing disagreement about the details of his ideology on the talk page, no one can seriously dispute that. Generalrelative (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So will you decide if Huey Long is an evil fascist or a left-wing populist? HueyLong1893 (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that I have been arguing against inclusion of "left-wing" in the article lead (i.e. in line with your position). I also think you should be indeffed per WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. Those are not mutually exclusive positions. Generalrelative (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Long an object of hatred? In those days, the FDR was a racist, as was half of the Democratic Party HueyLong1893 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my comments above because I realize it's probably best not to open this can of worms (though I recognize that a can of worms can never be truly resealed). Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem here, Huey, is that you're probably right, but you're definitely going about this the wrong way and antagonising everybody. Backing slowly away from the false dichotomies would help everybody. Deep breaths may help. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize, and you can ban me, but I swear to the Lord God, I constantly tried to contact Toa Nidhiki05  while he canceled my edits without declaring war. I didn't start this war, gentlemen. I was trying to restore the kind of article that was before the intervention  Toa Nidhiki05  HueyLong1893 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, reverting would have been a move to begin a discussion, unless you can provide a diff proving they did in fact added the content in the first place. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 18:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I re-added the content in question March of last year. The entire lead has frankly had some degree of dispute for a while, specifically with certain users objecting to referring to him as either "left-wing" or as "fascistic". Long has a somewhat bizarre online fandom, so it's not surprising a number of IPs or single-purpose accounts would be very interested in making Long align specifically with only their preferred political or moral alignment. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They did, with this edit in March 2022 . Their edit-summary was "not sure when this was removed", but it certainly wasn't in the article in 2021 as far as I can see and I've since been back to mid-2020 as well. Previously the OP removed this category in January 2021 (they ignored BRD when reverted as well). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: the user in question has been indefinitely blocked. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Janglyguitars is doing editing wars after a several warnings
User:Janglyguitars makes edits without consent and without discussion on the synth-pop article, and makes edit wars after there was no agreement on the talk page. The user has received several warnings but he continues to break the rules. UserFlash (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you could show some diffs it would be a big help, though right off the bat I'm not impressed with how Janglyguitars responded to your ANI notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a content dispute that started almost a month ago, augmented by edit warring between Janglyguitars and UserFlash (Binksternet has also reverted Janglyguitars but only once a day, and Doctorhawkes also reverted Janglyguitars' earliest changes). Extensive discussion on talk page but hasn't reach consensus and Janglyguitars is editing to their preferred version in the meantime. Suggest short-term article block for Janglyguitars to stop the edit war, and that the talk page discussion continue to reach consensus on whether synth-pop is a genre or subgenre. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, fuck off. Read the full discussion on the talk page and there’s no way @UserFlash will come out looking reasonable. I’m trying to edit the page so that it is neutral instead of pushing a certain point of view backed by one source but contradicted or omitted by others. My friend UserFlash is completely unwilling to compromise, never mind have an actual discussion or respond with any relevance to the points I’ve raised again and again. Apologies for losing my temper, but it’s extremely frustrating dealing with people like this who are so willfully uncomprehending and thoughtless. Janglyguitars (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have pageblocked our cheerful friend from Synth-pop and warned them that any further disruptive editing in the musical genre and subgenre area may result in additional sanctions up to a sitewide block. I had mostly written my block notice when I got distracted by real life off-Wikipedia and spent a few hours with my wife. So, I apologize for the delay in notifying the editor, but that has been done now. I encourage Janglyguitars to refrain from any further personal attacks of the type expressed in the last four words of the comment above. That type of rhetoric is not acceptable among colleagues on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Lovely! Janglyguitars (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The return of S201050066
Previous discussion: S201050066 and COVID-19 timeline pages

There is an IP who is re-adding Ontario and Quebec to global articles like Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2022 and claims to not be S201050066. Can we get a block, please? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Note they are threatening "cyber warfare" now, lol. Zaathras (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, whatever. Against the New Zealand government (?!), from Ontario? IP range blocked for a year and sock account indeffed.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

POV IP user
User:108.45.142.16 has made one edit only to Watermelon stereotype, blanking out an entire section and replacing it with ==watermelons are loved by blacks. Is any further comment necessary? Heads up. Kire1975 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * They’ve been warned, simple vandalism does not need an ANI thread. If it happens again, go to WP:AIV. Courcelles (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Kire did not put the actual replacement in the green text, so for future people looking at this, it was "watermelons are loved by blacks". If this was done for a specfic reason, feel free to delete it and trout me. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Xiaomichel -- single-purpose account repeatedly engaged in tendentious editing and edit-warring across multiple pages
There are separate noticeboards for reporting edit-warring, dispute resolution, and suspected sock-puppetry, but User:Xiaomichel is engaged in at least two of these on multiple pages simultaneously, so I figured it would be more appropriate to post here instead.

In brief, the editor is attempting to right the great wrong of dishes of French creation being credited to Italy and Austria instead. They are engaged in edit wars in multiple articles where they typically disparage or delete all mention of theories of non-French origin, even when supported by references, and replace them with (often vaguely sourced) statements asserting French origin instead.

I could have sworn that somewhere along the line someone also accused them of creating User:Juan.Alvarez6 as a sock puppet, but I can't for the life of me find that anymore.

Further discussion and links to the articles in question at User talk:Xiaomichel.

Full disclosure: I did a deep dive on their edits on May 7 and posted an overview in the talk page section linked above, but since then they've made 49 more edits. Multiple people complained about these new edits on my talk page, asserting that they continue the behaviour I flagged on May 7, but I haven't had the time to comb through them all to confirm that.

Stephen Hui (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel is relevant here. Courcelles (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I ran through the CU data again, and the edit pattern… when combined with behavior? I saw enough to block.  So I’ve done so. Courcelles (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Frivolous (misguided?) legal threats from 73.103.178.195
At the time of this report, 73.103.178.195 has made two Talk Page comments with regard to Jonathan Sapirman, the 20-year-old who killed three people in a mall shooting perpetrated in Greenwood, Indiana in July 2022. The IP previously claimed that Wikipedia's page on the shooting is illegal and later claimed (today) to be the shooter's mother. Dubious and/or misguided to be sure, but I'm posting a notification here in case an administrator wants to action this anyway per WP:NLT. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have left them a message here. If they are who they say then their distress is understandable. Probably (hopefully) no need to block them unless the threats continue. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed derogatory information about the shooter's family which was cited to the clickbait aggregator Heavy.com. I do not think that this source meets the standard required by BLP policy to say that his was a "troubled family". Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good removal. That absolutely didn't belong with that poor sourcing. Courcelles (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:FYE31 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r Comment
Making legal threats Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * was already blocked by EvergreenFir for 31 hours at the time of this report. But given their latest talk message I'm guessing it's going to get bumped to an Indef with a side salad or TPA revocation. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Talkpage access revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle abuses AfD by escalating edit war
(MST) escalated an edit war (    straight into a badly justified AfD nomination, never discussing on the article's talk page where there have been discussions of notability, which MST ignored altogether. This in itself would not be worthy of mention on ANI. However, this abuse of AfD is a recurring behaviour which has been pointed out here before, see in this proposal for a topic ban of MST in a comment from User:ResonantDistortion

In the past year, MST has been discussed extensively here on ANI, and the frequency seems to have increased: Incident Apr 2023, Incident Feb 2023, Incident Oct 2022, Incident Nov 2021. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This report seems a bit backward--escalating to AfD given the lack of consensus regarding notability on the talk page is the appropriate thing to do, not edit warring nor tendentious. By sending it to AfD, it gets a broader community review. It would have been nice to see a more thorough AfD nomination statement, but jumping to recommend a ban seems like an overreaction. signed,Rosguill talk 16:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's not hard to open a new section on the talk page to address the concerns, which all users involved failed to do. If concerns aren't addressed, then AfD could be appropriate; though I believe PROD would have more appropriate. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 16:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the talk page was stalled for nearly a month, with no clear consensus. I maintain that AfD was a reasonable choice of discussion venue at this time. PROD would be entirely inappropriate so long as anyone is lodging clear disagreement. signed,Rosguill talk 16:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the recent AfD discussions opened by MST, I do agree that there may be a problematic pattern of poorly considered nominations (although I would wait until after the discussions have reached their conclusion before trying to analyze them much, and there could be mitigating circumstances on a case-by-case basis). But I want to be quite clear that in general, escalating a stalled talk page notability discussion to AfD is not problematic behavior. signed,Rosguill talk 16:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't quite clear enough, I opened this incident not because of this one AfD nomination itself. It's the disruptive behavioral pattern which involved edit warring over including a "citations needed" tag without giving any concrete sentences. When asked to provide evidence, instead of providing that evidence, MST proposed the article for deletion with poor justification. And this incident is just one in a long line, see all the previous ANI discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Callmemirela I don't quite understand your sentence: It's not hard to open a new section on the talk page to address the concerns, which all users involved failed to do. What should I have discussed on the talk page (or did you not include me in the "all users"). MST never substantiated which sentences needed citations. They should have placed in line citation tags or discussed on talk. This is the chronology:
 * - 1. MST "Added tag"
 * - 2. Smartse "Undid revision 1155241771 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) everything is sourced?!"
 * - 3. MST "Restoring tag- unfortunately many sentences aren't.
 * - 4. AncientWalrus (me) "Undid revision 1155378972 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk): MrsSnoozyTurtle it would be very helpful if you could discuss the concrete sentences you would like citations for on the talk page"
 * - 5. MST "Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bogner." AncientWalrus (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How I see it is that despite edit summaries, a section should have been started to address the issue. Edit summaries are one thing and are the main reason discussions don't occur on talk pages. I see there's one about notability but none about MST's POV. Whether she answers or not is another issue, but at least a discussion was attempted. I see one or two sentences that have no sources, but overall I see no issues with the article. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 16:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that the discussion link inside the greenish part above goes directly to comments by me, and I agree with the list of the numerous previous ANI threads at the end of the opening post. The most recent of which was a mere month ago: . It's worth noting this recent comment of hers: . I can AGF that she might avoid commenting in these ANI complaints because of the stress, but there also becomes a point at which it simply becomes the proverbial "ANI flu". There has been, repeatedly, a consensus of giving MST another chance in the hope that there will be improvement. But I think that we are where the WP:ROPE has run out, and we shouldn't keep repeating the same consensus in the hope that something different will happen this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You articulate my reasoning for opening this incident well. It's not so much that this particular incident justifies action, it doesn't if it were isolated. Their other AfD nomination from today is similarly low effort and obviously unjustified. Or see this recent comment by an editor to another one of MST's nominations:
 * Full nomination record is here for convenience. It is surprising how someone with more than 30k edits seems to make such mistakes. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I see we're back here again. I assume we'll be going with the usual mechanism of MST not commenting here until days after everyone else has stopped, perhaps with another wikibreak that has people saying we should "wait until they're back and can defend themselves before making any decisions". Rinse and repeat over and over again. I still stand by what I said in the previous two ANI discussions that a ban on all AfD nominations and usage of PROD (after the whole PRODing of Tufts University nonsense) is the best option here. They can still vote in AfDs, as I haven't seen problems with that in the past, but it is very plain that their ability to judge notability conflicts with their rather strong belief that any articles made by a new account are inherently promotional no matter what. Of course, the latter if true would usually just mean cleanup is needed for notable subjects, but MST seems to always escalate to AfD and waste all of our collective time. Silver  seren C 16:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. A (limited time) ban of AfD nominations and PROD would help avoid unnecessary work. If MST thinks an article should be deleted, they should comment to that effect on the talk page. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I find it interesting to look at the ANI reports opened on MST that were mentioned by the OP.
 * First one - opened by a new-ish and now indeffed account
 * Second one - opened by an IP
 * Third one - opened by an account with <20 edits
 * Fourth one - opened by the same IP range as the second one
 * This one - opened by an editor here for less than two months with a good knowledge of the history.
 * Quite remarkable, really. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite Are you suggesting I am a sock of the IPs/accounts? I have nothing to do with the other people who previously reported at ANI. I found the history simply by doing a search in the "Search Noticeboards Archive" box for MST. Not rocket science at all. Did I miss ANIs on MST? I don't think so. This account (AncientWalrus) was created as a WP:ALTACCOUNT for retaliation protection reasons, for further background see my SPI reply. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting anything. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person whose "something is awry here" detector pings a bit when they see a fifth ANI that has been started against a single editor and not a single one from an established editor. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe or maybe not, but that seems a separate matter given that SilverSeren has endorsed the concerns raised by AncientWalrus. WP:SPI is thataway if you have concerns in this regard, but the points raised in this thread appear legitimate, and this tangent, while it may have merit, should not distract from other issues raised here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite Aren't most ANIs started by non-established editors? Or how do you define "established editor"? I thought ANI was for pointing out intractable, chronic, disruptive behaviour. This was my first interaction with MST. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to SilverSeren and AncientWalrus, it's me too. I don't think it's too informative to simply consider who first opened each of these multiple ANI threads. Instead, it's important to recognize that multiple established editors have repeatedly confirmed that there are, in fact, some significant problems. In past ANI discussions, I've documented ways in which MST has behaved disruptively towards the Article Rescue Squad (who also have some unclean hands, as well). I guess I can go back and post those yet again, although I also remember Black Kite having taken part in some of those discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are so many battleground editors in the inclusion/deletion wars that are blocked, banned or topic-banned from the subject that one has to be aware when any ANI against an editor in the area is opened. Having said that I am obviously prepared to AGF on AncientWalrus given the explanation. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's entirely reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And in all of those discussions, the community respondents pretty clearly found MST to be in the wrong, regardless of the opener of the discussion. So, do you have a point with this comment or is this more in the vein of just asking questions? Silver  seren C 18:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here in this edit and in this edit to their userpage, AncientWalrus seems to be indicating that they are a sock account being used by an established editor to edit articles related to a certain organization, hiding some other identity in order to avoid retaliation. Or am I mistaken? Nythar  (💬-🍀) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like it, since GISAID is known for excessive legal retaliation for anything they deem to be negative towards the organization. I can say that I would not want to edit the GISAID article or Peter's with my account openly. I assume you brought this up to refute Black Kite's claims above? Silver  seren C 18:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought it was relevant to clarify these facts a little more publicly with a few diffs so that those posting their thoughts have some more background knowledge before they comment. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 18:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct. GISAID is known to retaliate, in bioinformatics circles this is very well known, only recently has it been covered in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean the retaliation can't be real. The original account has not been used in a while though. I'm considering adopting this one as the main one (fresh start) and just being more careful about revealing my identity in the future in general. I edited Wikipedia as a young adolescent, mostly as IP, then mostly typo fixes under previous account for a while, and now more active under this account. Here are some reliable sources to peruse for more information on GISAID:
 * AncientWalrus (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, and I hope we can set the issue of "who opened this complaint" aside, and get back to the topic at hand. I would be in favor of some sort of editing restriction for MST. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What sort of editing ban though? Mast's enthusiasm is great. If they showed it more on talk pages and less in edit wars/nominations that would be amazing. Maybe they can be nudged by a temporary ban on PROD and AfD nominations? AncientWalrus (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I proposed one, and you linked to my proposal in your opening post. As of now, I think the simplest approach, the one least vulnerable to wiki-lawyering, would be a ban from anything deletion-related, broadly construed. Of course, that may not get support, so there could instead be some specific things banned from. There is no need to make it temporary, because any such restriction can be appealed after a period of time demonstrating good conduct. But this time, I'm probably going to let someone else propose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I won't propose it as it could be get (wrongly) dismissed as "yet another inexperienced SPA complaint." AncientWalrus (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * { I hope that multiple editors will discuss the plusses and minuses of various options here, and then we can collectively see what might or might not get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello all. As far as I'm aware, the OP hasn't attempted either discussing this on my Talk page or any dispute resolution before bringing this to ANI? Nonetheless, I agree that this AFD nomination was a mistake and I apologise for that. I have now withdrawn the AFD. The nomination was based on a genuine concern about the BLP's notability, however I also apologise if it came across as a retaliation for my Citation Needed tag being removed. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying here, I really appreciate that. Thanks also for speedily keeping the Peter Bogner article. I first wanted to discuss this on your talk page, but when I realized that there had been discussion of the exact behavior (ignoring WP:BEFORE) on ANI and yet the pattern seemed to have continued I decided it would be more appropriate to raise it here.
 * What do you think of Articles_for_deletion/Yang_Bing-yi? Shouldn't this also be speedily kept? Or this one Articles_for_deletion/DMARGE.
 * Can you explain why you did not open a discussion on the article's talk page when you were asked which sentences in particular you felt required citations? Did you read the talk page and see that there had already been extensive discussion regarding notability? If yes, why did you not first reply on the talk page voicing your disagreement? If you did not read the talk page, why not? AncientWalrus (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that you have already deleted the ANI notification from your user page. The fact that you are WP:BLANKING rather than archiving your user talk page is another aspect why I felt it would be more productive to raise this issue here. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with doing that. An editor is deemed to have read the message if they remove it from their talkpage (and MST obviously has read it, because they've responded here. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, no issue with blanking. However, there's a pattern that feedback on MST's action, even provided repeatedly through ANI is not taken into account and actioned in future behaviour. I would say the blanking is consistent with the general attitude to ignore community feedback. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing two things here that give me a disheartening sense of deja vu. First, with regard to the issue of the message blanking, I keep seeing ANI threads about MST in which someone raises an issue that is an insignificant issue, leading to extended discussion about how that wasn't such a big deal, and then leading to nothing being done. The problem is that real problems get lost amid the noise. The second is that MST comes briefly to ANI to respond by saying sorry to the specific complaint raised in the opening post, without acknowledging anything else. The problem is that uninvolved editors are led to conclude that the dispute has been resolved. But then, problems just keep happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Convenience break (TB proposal)

 * So, having just said that, I want to bring this discussion back around to what I believe is a long-term and continuing pattern of problems, all related to deletion, and all going beyond run-of-the-mill disagreements over deletionist versus inclusionist leanings. First, please look back to last fall, and scroll down to the comments made there by about MST repeatedly draftifying clearly notable biographies, apologizing when alerted about it, and then going back and resuming the same thing: . Then, look here:, from earlier this year. The number of issues with experienced and clueful editors having deletion-related concerns gets too large for comfort. This included a facepalm-worthy PROD of Tufts University. In that discussion, there are multiple other stubifications, draftifications, and PRODs that get pointed out. In addition, I provided these diffs of her edit warring WP:POINTy edits at the ARS noticeboard: , , , and , which are just representative examples of multiple other such edits (and yes, ARS is not without problems itself). She also has a history of accusing editors who disagree with her of "canvassing" when they are not: . Taken as a whole, this reflects an approach to deletion that treats it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We must not lose sight of that, or we'll just be back here at ANI yet again. Each time, there is a very limited apology, followed by recividism. I'm thinking about how to construct an editing restriction that will help, without going too far. It seems to me that dubious AfDs, although they can waste other editors' time, are easily resolved through discussion before harm to content occurs. But stubbing, draftification, and PRODing, are more disruptive, and maybe there should be a community ban against doing those three things. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't really been following the MST saga, but what reasonable editor would PROD Tufts University? (What would be next, Northeastern?, Emerson?, until only Harvard and MIT were left?) That alone was probably sanction-worthy behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. MST seems to take actions that are way outside the Overton window. If you point one instance out, they apologize, but it has no bearing on similarly unreasonable actions in the future. There's also a general carelessness, which they don't seem to be fixing. In the case I opened this incident with, they apologized (narrowly) and closed themselves with speedy keep. However, in the process, they made mistakes that show they don't care about following process, meaning others have to clean up after them. That's not respectful of other Wikipedians time. It's either a case of extreme carelessness or Competence is required. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the criticism of my self-close of the AFD is going a bit far. I tried to do the right thing, but didn't notice that the italic text meant that it needed to be changed when copy-pasting. A simple and easily fixable mistake. This is also why I am reluctant to comment much at ANI, there are some people who look negatively on everything I say and try to use it against me. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checked: Tufts University was created in September 2002, is almost 120k long, has 168 citations and over 1,500 editors who have made over 4,000 edits. Anyone who PRODS an article like that, even if they never heard of Tufts (which is not my alma mater), really doesn't belong on en.wiki as anything but a reader.  Such grossly bad judgment deserves, at least, a general topic ban from nominating for XfD and SD, PRODding, DRAFTifying or stubbing anything on en.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support BMK's proposed topic ban, ample evidence has been presented that MST creates many more problems than is worth it in the realm of assessing articles for deletion (or equivalent). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the proposed topic ban as well. BMK's proposal is similar to Silverseren's above and Tryptofish's back in a previous ANI. Per Competence is required. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the topic ban, as proposed, for all the reasons I've already said just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the proposed topic ban, since this is actually being proposed now. I feel it should have been done the previous times we were all here when the Tufts incident itself, among others, happened. But I'm glad we're getting to it now, especially since it is clear that the problematic actions were not curbed since the previous ANI discussion (nor ever, it seems). Just a trend of quiet, minor editing for a few weeks after each time and then back to the same old behavior once the attention has cleared. We shouldn't have to keep going through this again and again every couple of months. Silver  seren C 00:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the topic ban, and encourage MrsSnoozyTurtle to spend a year or two focusing on content creation as opposed to content deletion. After four months, I am still not able to wrap my head around the bizarre and inexplicable PROD of Tufts University, but I am always prepared to accept that an editor made a one-off error. However, all the links provided above show that this is a chronic problem, not a single spectacularly bad decision. Apologies about single incidents are insufficient when there is a chronic pattern of problems. The editor needs to prove over time that she is here to build this encyclopedia, rather than to disassemble it piece by piece. Cullen328 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The topic ban. The deletion participation as documented above has been egregious Jack4576 (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Given both the previous highlighted and current issues, there is a pattern of slowly dissembling the project rather than building it.  This includes creating an environment that does the opposite of nurturing and guiding new editors.  I concur with above that a period focused on content creation would be beneficial.  ResonantDistortion 07:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dissembling? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies - you are quite right. I meant disassembling. ResonantDistortion 15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. This seems to be repeated AfD behavior. Also I don't like the editor's reply of not engaging in discussion here in the ANI threads. AGF works both ways. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 11:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Update I'd suggest to move ahead with the topic ban before MST does more damage. They seem to maybe even have increased their disruptive deletion related behavior. In the last 24hr:
 * Tagged Lilt (company) for speedy deletion under WP:G11, after they had PRODed two days before. That PROD was reverted by User:Kvng. The CSD was reverted by User:BigHaz who left a comment on MST's Talk page (but may have missed the fact there's an ANI on MST, given that MST has already removed the notification). They the proposed the article for deletion. MST's behavior shows insufficient understanding of policy, and no desire to change this state despite taking a large number of deletion related actions. They create a lot of work for without much benefit.
 * Requested speedy deletion of Moshe Reuven despite obvious notability. Request was declined by User:Bbb23
 * PRODding an academic biography, even though the professor has a named chair (WP:PROF) and has won a major prize
 * PRODed Center for Advanced Materials, reverted by BigHaz and this is just as selection. Almost all actions were deletion related, no content creation. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying my best to stay out of this one, since I've apparently tripped over a can of worms and an ants' nest, but you're right that I didn't know about the ANI here. I'll admit I was a bit surprised, after checking what the user has been up to, that nobody had seemed to discuss the matter earlier, but hadn't got as far as looking for discussions, if that makes sense. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I want to clarify -- in light of comments made at another AfD TBan discussion on this page -- that I worded the TB proposal as I did so that MST would not be barred from commenting at AfD, only from making nominations, PRODing etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Of MST's typical edit portfolio, this would leave tagging with COI/notability etc, which should be fine, given this is much less disruptive than creating deletion based work, as tags can simply be reverted if disagreed with. AncientWalrus (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. It's the Colette Henry incident that tips this over the line for me; attempting to delete articles on notable academics is one of the many patterns of past poor behavior that MST has long-ago apologized for, promised to be more careful about, and is now doing again without evidence of more care. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to note that I posted on MST's talk page to suggest the probability of this being closed relatively soon, so if MST wanted to comment on the discussion, they should do so sooner rather than later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576's repeated poor conduct on AfD
This user started editing at AfD around two weeks ago, and has repeatedly been making tenuous !vote arguments, and seems to be excessively focused on keeping as many articles as possible. I do admit that I lean towards deletionism, but | their AfD stats show a very high keep !vote percentage of 68%. You can just look through the AfD stats, specifically the keep !votes, but some specific examples include Ryan Murphy, St. Patrick's Institute of Science & Technology,  Jim Embry,  KaSelly, which although was a delete !vote from them, shows their opinion on the deletion of articles,  Sudipto Sen, Fernand Gandaho, and  Nepal Mathematical Society. Frankly, Curbon7's comment perfectly.

If you look through their !votes, their history is full of comments that go against policy, making up policy entirely and misinterpreting policy (at one point doing a "collective assessment" of sources that obviously fail WP:SIGCOV). Their talk page has quite a few discussions of note, such as Notability and Wikipedia and Civility. When I left a "final warning" regarding their conduct, they replied with "Consider your 'final warning' ignored. Feel free to nominate at your convenience." However, they have been constructive creating articles in Australian law. I would propose a ban from AfD, if such a thing can be done. I have more examples to show and more uncivil comments that they have made; I will give them if anyone wants more detail. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 05:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello reader. I disagree that my keep votes are in bad faith.
 * I have made a few uncivil comments in the past, however I think my recent comments have overwhelmingly been civil and a fair contribution.
 * My criticisms of Wikipedia policies are and ought to be fair game, and are in good faith. Ditto re: my criticism of deletion decisions that I believe have been contrary to guidelines, or fail to; (1) engage in SIGCOV, (2) comply with WP:Before, or (3) are lacking in their consideration of social context or Wikipedia's wider social mission. Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * further, 'collectively assessing' references for assessing whether or not SIGCOV has been met is not 'misinterpreting policy'
 * when deciding on whether SIGCOV has been met, all sources need to be considered together Jack4576 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My high keep !vote percentage reflects the fact that I usually abstain from participating in AfD discussions where it seems to me that a delete vote would be inevitable. Because of that, the above point regarding my 68% keep vote rate is misleading Jack4576 (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no issue with disagreeing with Wikipedia's policies. I think most editors disagree with some things. The issue is is that you take those disagreements with you to AfD, often meaning your !votes conflict with the actual policy. WP:SIGCOV does not have "collective assessments", a source is SIGCOV-compliant or not, and articles need two of those. I made the point regarding the high keep percentage because most editors like to !vote both keep and delete, rather than only !vote for one side.JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV as expressed in WP:GNG is in relation to subjects, not particular sources. If multiple references and sources exist, it is possible for them to be collectively assessed so as to amount to a subject meeting SIGCOV requirements.
 * My votes do not conflict with policy, your votes conflict with policy. Jack4576 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not possible for "collective assessments" to be made. I am unsure how many editors need to spell that out to you, but it is plain wrong, and you've now shown your issue with understanding core Wikipedia policy, and your civility issues. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is your assessment of the policy that is plainly wrong. Jack4576 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And while I'm here, I'd like to remind the community of Jack's oppose on Ingenuity's RfA. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Relevance ? ? ?
 * Jack4576 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because it's another thing you did, that I forgot to mention in the report. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain the relevance of a good faith and civil RfA oppose vote to this discussion Jack4576 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the focus of the discussion is “battleground behavior concerning deletion”, and your RfA vote is a clear example of that (?). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a good faith oppose vote on an RfA, (which I note was withdrawn after feedback), amounts to battleground behaviour Jack4576 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support AfD topic ban. I see numerous incorrect applications of policy by Jack4576 in deletion discussions, and have yet to see anything that shows they understand Wikipedia policy surrounding notability. Their comments above show they don't even understand significant coverage. Their hostility towards good-faith feedback on their comments shows they are not willing to learn and adjust their behavior accordingly. While their !votes may be good-faith, they display a serious lack of competence that is deserving of a topic ban from deletion discussions. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From the SIGCOV policy: "... does not need to be the main topic of the source material ..."
 * If I have multiple sources, none of which involve the subject as the main topic; and read them collectively, it is possible to come to a view that the subject has received significant coverage from source material.
 * If you are asserting a contrary interpretation of the SIGCOV policy, then yes, you are correct, I do not understand it. Jack4576 (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions of a subject in multiple sources does not amount to significant coverage. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and what about when the mentions are more than 'trivial' or 'passing' ? Jack4576 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll be clear for the record; I support an AfD topic ban for Jack. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you've already noted in the ANI. Jack4576 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Without commenting of the editor in questions' understanding of SIGCOV (which does, I will mention, appear to be erroneous and bizarre), I just want to note that the AfD keep percentage argument used at the beginning of your comment is particularly weak. I was expecting before I got to the number that it was going to be something like 90%. But 68%? My own is 78%. It would be a stronger argument to consider AfD outcomes matching or not the voting record for the editor, which is only 66% for Jack. But since only about half of the AfDs they've been involved in have even closed yet, it's a bit early to use that metric either. Anyways, your argument on their misunderstanding of notability and what significant coverage is in reliable sources is much better to focus on, along with their incivility in said discussions. The percentages part, not so much. Silver  seren C 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'll strike it out. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why was it included in the first place? Jack4576 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was to demonstrate how much keep !voting to do, however it turns out that, at least with number of !votes, it's not that uncommon. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you include it without first determining whether it was actually uncommonly high?
 * I suggest that the answer is motivated reasoning Jack4576 (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't excuse your behaviours, and I'm not going to check AfD stats of individual editors. It came from the percentage of articles deleted after being nominated at AfD, which is around 75%. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you included it because you have engaged in motivated reasoning to find reasons in support of your post here. Jack4576 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The AfD discussions linked above are selective at best.
 * I'd like to point out some of my positive contributions to AfD, including:
 * The Chicago CRED AfD
 * The Jeff Guess AfD
 * The Humphrey's Restaurant & Tavern AfD
 * The unfortunate Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence AfD
 * The McKinsey quarterly AfD
 * The Sunny Isles Beach AfD
 * The KaSelly AfD
 * The Nikko Smith AfD
 * Jack4576 (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned KaSelly in my original report. Some were fine, but I would still argue that the other those !votes are bad, as some were repudiated by other editors with policy, and others were junk AfD nominations. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 06:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the basis of your inclusion was baffling. I was not aware "shows their opinion on the deletion of articles" is a banning reason for AfD discussions Jack4576 (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason we're here is because you continually change the meaning of notability guidelines or make up your own to WP:RGW, and you have repeatedly been told to not do so. I didn't mention it in the original report, but competence is required at Wikipedia and you need to listen. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of SIGCOV, as being able to be met through a collective assessment of all sources to an article; is entirely in compliance with GNG.
 * If you disagree with that interpretation; or would like to clarify this issue by opening an RfC for consensus, that would be more appropriate. As yet, you have yet to demonstrate or even point to anything to support your position that SIGCOV can only be met if at least one of the sources individually and in isolation amounts to significant coverage.
 * Raising these issues here is unproductive, and isn't an effective way to resolve the dispute. Someone having a good-faith disagreement with you on how a guideline ought be interpreted is not a sign of incompetence; however your reflexive accusations that this is the case, is itself a problem (added after strikethrough) certainly a sign of your own arrogance. Jack4576 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jack, please strike that last sentence. ANI is a very bad place to use such a direct personal attack. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 07:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That was uncivil and I apologise.
 * I am frustrated by JML1148 questioning my competence while refusing to consider that his own interpretation of the SIGCOV policy (as articulated above) is mistaken. Jack4576 (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that Jack does often !vote keep despite admitting that the subject does not meet SIGCOV or the SNG. One recent example being Articles for deletion/Kafuko Stanley. Whilst this could be considered disruptive, the closing admin can ignore or give these sorts of comments less weight. I'm not sure if we've reached the stage where we need to topic ban yet. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just flagging I've just struck out a moment ago that argument I made on 11 May
 * I've stopped arguing that GNG can be met without SIGCOV, in response to feedback Jack4576 (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that it is. The issue is that this editor has been given many chances and has had editors explain things to them many times over, as well as the civility issues as we have seen in this discussion. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the SIGCOV rule is incorrect. Sources must be evaluated collectively.
 * I am correct to ignore your repeated explanations to the contrary.
 * If you want to obtain consensus on your interpretive view, raise it in an RfC. I will gladly follow consensus.
 * Your repeated questioning of my competence, whilst refusing to engage appropriately, is itself uncivil. Pot calling the kettle black, etcetera Jack4576 (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very ......... for an editor to call another's arguments "very stupid", shortly prior to running off to make an ANI complaining of incivility Jack4576 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I certainly see your point, JML1148. If any topic ban is to be enforced, I would prefer it to be only a very short-term measure. Jack does need to stop with the uncivil comments, there's no argument about that but, again, we're not looking at a WP:NOTHERE editor here, just someone who perhaps needs clear guidance and boundaries. Jack's willingness to take on others' comments and strike or change their !votes is also a positive thing imho. See Articles for deletion/Demetris Spyridakis, for example. There are plenty of editors on AfD who refuse to back down even when presented with clear evidence but at least Jack is not one of them. Making mistakes at AfD is normal especially when engaging with them with little prior experience. I've read some of my old nominations and !votes and surprised I managed to escape a topic ban myself given how dreadful some of my arguments were. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am happy to take on-board feedback that future participation in AfD discussions must be more civil Jack4576 (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Including yourself? LibStar (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes ...... I was speaking for myself ...... Jack4576 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. In my opinion, Jack has made spurious keep !votes, and although it is good to see that they are changing their !votes once given detailed replies, however this isn't happening all of the time. Just look at the amount of text on Ryan Murphy, and they've been active on AfD for two weeks. They've had plenty of time to learn, and plenty of encouragement to read policy and use it correctly. But they continue to WP:RGW, be uncivil in deletion discussions and on talk pages, and now they're harassing LibStar on their talk page. I would agree with you if they're relatively new to the process, but it's my opinion, in good faith, that the "guidance and boundaries" that you mentioned in your comment have well and truly been given, and have been ignored. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 11:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not harass Libstar on their talk page. They misrepresented the discussion in breach of the guidelines; and I attempted to link to a diff. This is not harassment.
 * I don't understand your point re: the Ryan Murphy AfD. My discussion on that page adheres strictly to SIGCOV guidelines. Jack4576 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Like several other editors, I find the percentage slur spurious at best ... my own AfD percentage runs little better than 10% Keep, and speaking as a deletionist, there is nothing whatsoever inherently sinister about being an inclusionist. The only times when it's reasonable to question percentages is how often the editor gets it right.  My own "match" percentage (votes-to-eventual outcome) is just short of 90%. By contrast, Jack4576's is 66%.  I've seen worse, but obviously he could better align himself with prevalent notions in deletion discussions.   Ravenswing      08:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the description of it being "how often the editor gets it right" as opposed to "how often the editor gets it aligned with consensus".
 * However I agree with you to the extent that I do agree it is at least a somewhat valuable metric for assessing good faith in discussions Jack4576 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree with your comment, and I believe that the percentage argument was a poor one to make. I've struck it out for that reason. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 11:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Jack4576 has soaked up a lot of the community's time in the last 3 weeks in AfDs, RfCs and even a RfA. As recently as today he was disparaging to a non Australian editor in an Australian AfD. The RfA in question is also concerning, Jack at the time was the sole oppose vote to 190 or so support votes. He argued extensively for his oppose vote Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ingenuity, then retracted it wasting a lot of community's time. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You also soak up a lot of the community's time LibStar with your high amount of activity. My activity in and of itself ought not be a problem.
 * Editors like yourself, that have a demonstrable history of nominating articles under AfD without performing WP:BEFORE are a larger and more wasteful soak of the community's time in my view
 * I'd like to point out, a lot of my involvement is responding to premature nominations from yourself. This occurred in relation to these three nominations: (1), (2), (3); but there are numerous more examples available. I have rarely (if ever?) seen you back down in the face of opposing arguments, even when consensus is not on your side and novel arguments have been presented. So forgive me for reacting with some incredulity here to your assertion that I 'soak up a lot of the community's time'.
 * My good faith participation in an RfA is entirely irrelevant to this discussion; which is about my AfD participation.
 * Please explain to me why good faith participation in other areas of this website such as RfA or RfC give rise to a cause for concern Jack4576 (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an ANI about you not me. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When you have raised my high amount activity on this website as a problem, it is appropriate to raise as context that a large amount of that activity has arisen in response to your demonstrated failure at adhering to AfD guidelines
 * Oh and WP:BOOMERANG Jack4576 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again. This is an ANI about you not me. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG, we could do this all day. Jack4576 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're not happy about my conduct. Set up an ANI for me. But it would be considered WP:BOOMERANG. Secondly, stop posting on my talk page. LibStar (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is entirely appropriate for me to respond to your accusations that I have been overly active; to provide context that the reason for that activity has been in large part a response to your disruptive editing. Jack4576 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I have been disruptive bring it up in ANI. Now you are harassing me on my talk page despite requests for you to stop posting. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pfft, I did not 'harass you on your talk page'
 * You altered our conversation misrepresenting it, in clear breach of the guidelines.
 * When I attempted to add a 'diff', you removed it again, whilst retaining the prior conversation as a misrepresentation.
 * You have been disruptive and this is an appropriate place to call it out given your baseless allegations above. Jack4576 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I requested several times for you to stop posting on my page, yet you continued. Removing your posts on my own talk page is hardly disruptive. Your argumentative nature here is just further evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND nature on WP. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not "remove my posts" you edited the conversation and misrepresented the conversation.
 * It was appropriate to remedy that issue, given it was a clear guideline breach and misrepresented my discussion with you.
 * On what planet does this amount to harassment? Get real. Jack4576 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your response is just typical of WP:BATTLEGROUND, you're doing a disservice to yourself here when your behaviour is being examined. I suggest you cease responding on this issue. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're going to misrepresent our conversation in a clear guideline breach, and then further misrepresent my edits as harassment; that is pretty ridiculous and I'm going to call it out. Jack4576 (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Harassment includes repeatedly posting on someone's talk page when specifically asked to stop. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no guideline breach in LibStar's edit. Per the guidelines about user and user talk pages: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. Moreover, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior. You have posted once after being asked not to, which is easily taken as confrontational behavior. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He did not merely remove comments, he removed my response while retaining his responses; misrepresenting the conversation.
 * Perhaps posting the thank you was confrontational, but I did not see his ask for me not to do that prior. I apologise if that edit was confrontational Libstar it was not my intent. Jack4576 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * LibStar removed your response after the "conversation" had already come here to ANI. It's not misrepresentation to decide that the thread on one's own page should come to a stop. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He replied to my comment, and then deleted my reply to his reply
 * That's an alteration to the substance of the thread. If he wanted the thread completely removed from his page, he was entitled to do that. Altering the substance of a discussion is a talk page guideline breach. He shouldn't misrepresent the discussion that took place.Jack4576 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Inserting a "not" into the middle of your words would be an "alteration to the substance of the thread". Cutting the thread off is within the bounds of acceptable behavior. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then I apologise, as it was not my intent to harass Libstar, I thought I was being misrepresented; and I apologise for the harm caused. Jack4576 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for believing his edits were an alteration to the substance is the talk page guideline reading: "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that have taken place" WP:TPNO
 * Libstar's request that I no longer edit his page was after the exchange that he was partially deleting had been completed; and so I was concerned about being misrepresented. In the interests of putting this to bed; again, I apologise. Jack4576 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're trying to tell someone to be less active on Wikipedia? That is the most ridiculous statement I've heard here, and that's saying something. You are also going on about LibStar not conducting WP:BEFORE searches, however they definitely do, and it's not that hard for you to do one yourself, if you feel like they have missed something. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You yourself have called out my level of activity as a reason for a topic ban. I agree that its a ridiculous reason Jack4576 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never made those claims. What I have stated is that you are bludgeoning pages, a practice which LibStar is not doing. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AfD topic ban. Per their insistence that everyone else is wrong about sigcov but not them (as seen in the above afds, rfa etc.). Further (from the above) their insistence that interviews and institutions that a subject works for are not WP:PRIMARY are incorrect. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "their insistence that interviews and institutions that a subject works for are not WP:PRIMARY" what are you talking about ? Jack4576 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AfD topic ban: I took some time going over the evidence and thinking about this, and this sounds where we are. First off, I'm troubled by some of Jack4576's spurious rationales at AfD.  I've participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and one key principle that binds inclusionists and deletionists alike is that the basis for an article's notability is the notability guidelines and standards in place, not upon wishful thinking or how-the-rules-would-read-if-I-was-the-one-crafting-them.  Jack4576 is too ready to decide that the rules mean what he wants them to mean, never mind when he thinks that "Wikipedia's mission" or social justice considerations have any direct application to the GNG, SIGCOV and other notability guidelines.  Beyond that, as we've seen in this topic, he is far too ready to get combative; for instance, his response to LibStar above.  This is an encyclopedia, and the best defense is NOT to launch attacks on your perceived foes.   Ravenswing      11:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point to some AfD rationalisations that have been problematic of late ? Jack4576 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * LibStar gives it as much as he takes it; and besides, his accusations above are baseless, and I have defended myself in a civil manner.
 * It is a misrepresentation from him to describe my activities as wasting the community's time, when much of the activity is due to his defective AfD nominations. (e.g. (1), (2), (3); plus plenty others) Jack4576 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AfD topic ban for reasons Ravenswing has pointed out and Jack's willingness to turn WP into a WP:BATTLEGROUND at every opportunity when someone disagrees with him even in this ANI. Most concerning to me was Jack's defiant . LibStar (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're involved in the disputed behaviour. Jack4576 (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not disqualify me from making comments. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It does disqualify your vote from being accorded weight when community consensus is determined Jack4576 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And hoping you will accept that community consensus. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course I will. Jack4576 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another misinterpretation of policy...LibStar's opinion isn't discounted simply because they've participated in some of the same discussions you've participated in. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree they're one of the core participants in this dispute, along with yourself. Jack4576 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't matter. Editors who've interacted with you are of course going to be more likely to know what the problem is, and of course some of them will weigh in. We do not consider only opinions from editors who have never interacted with you, we do not discount opinions from those who have. You are misunderstanding policy w/re WP:INVOLVED. Involved is about admin action. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ban policy (which is separate) requires that community consensus for a ban; needs to be reached by community members not involved in the conduct leading to the ban in question Jack4576 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Add WP:CBAN to the list of policies Jack4576 thinks they understand but completely misinterprets in a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEONING approach. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sock? In reading over this, the obsession with deletion discussions and Aussie-related topics sent the bells ringing. Subtropical-man's topic ban, Oct 2022. Zaathras (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is my only account and it has been consistently active on Australian law related topics since 2020 Jack4576 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I do have one other account that I occasionally use to edit the pages of parliamentarians; within compliance of WP's guidelines. But it is not that account, and I have never used it to Sock. Jack4576 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please disclose that account on your userpage per WP:SOCKLEGIT? JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Per the WP:SOCKLEGIT clause 'Privacy' Jack4576 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No topic ban and this borders (or steps over) the ridiculous. Several well-versed and well-intentioned AfD editors have been banned from AfD in the past year because they (gasp, fainting salts please) argued to save pages. My own AfD contributions have been almost all 'Keep' because I only vote on pages I would like to see kept and I don't vote if the tally is already strongly in favor of deleting. Should I also expect a topic ban proposal because I have a voting pattern both obnoxious and contrary to the deletion crew? This discussion, which has devolved into a push for a topic ban for Jack4576, should be closed down as quickly as if it were an Old West-style lynching. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jack4576 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic ban is not because of his "voting pattern both obnoxious and contrary to the deletion crew" its because of his insistence that everyone else is wrong about SIGCOV not him. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then hopefully he'll learn from this discussion (Wikipedians all have learning curves, this should be accepted as a fact of editing) but a topic ban from AfD? Maybe a one-week topic ban to "get the message", but way too many 'Keep' editors have been attacked and banned in the past year and in previous years, not a good look for what supposedly is a neutral and fair encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support AfD topic ban - Despite many warnings and attempts to educate, Jack continues to bludgeon AfDs such as Articles for deletion/Anna Dziedzic where he comments no less than 15 times, often inventing or misrepresenting notability criteria and even suggesting "you could vote IAR" to another editor who couldn't find a policy-based reason to !vote Keep. Their occasional use of odd flowery prose "Ah, my esteemed fellow, your remarks sing to me like a lark at dawn - delightful, if somewhat dissonant. I confess I have been a thorn in the side of complacency, a bee in the bonnet of unexamined consensus, yet, is not such fervor the lifeblood of our endeavor? I am accused of inventing criteria for AfDs. Surely, you jest! I do not invent, dear colleague; I merely illuminate the unseen, undusting the corners of our understanding, for are we not all seekers of truth in this grand academic arena?" is strange and not in keeping with being here to build an encyclopedia. We see the same behavior at Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian politician) and numerous other AfDs. The solution isn't for closers to simply disregard these disruptive comments; typically closers will accept any arguments that go unchallenged, which means that other editors must spend time repeatedly explaining why Jack is wrong. Since all attempts to help have failed, a topic ban is our last remaining option. –dlthewave ☎ 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see "you could vote IAR" as a disruptive response
 * To my mind, it is in full compliance. It is a concession that an article is contrary to policy, yet a request that it ought be nonetheless retained
 * Providing singular replied in response, in the course of an ordinary AfD discussion, in good faith, is not bludegeoning (for goodness sake...)
 * Neither is it problematic or unencyclopedic to express one's views in "flowery language". Good grief sir Jack4576 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You would be best served to stop replying to every comment in this thread. It’s borderline WP:BLUDGEONING and will end up hurting your case. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:A573:E15D:68D7:52A3 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a right to respond to the reasons provided in arguments advocating for my topic ban.
 * As you acknowledge, it is borderline at most; and I do not think I have crossed the line into bludgeoning.
 * In any event, the WP:BLUD essay is not policy. Jack4576 (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be gentle with my wording to avoid a hostile response. I was not successful. It’s obvious that you’re viewing this entire situation with a battleground mentality. If this is the hill upon which you want to end your time here, nobody is going to be able to stop you. Obviously, I won’t try to help you again. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:A573:E15D:68D7:52A3 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you consider my reply above to be a 'hostile response' Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not policy, however, it is an explanatory essay regarding the disruptive editing policy, and it is very possible to be sanctioned on the grounds of bludgeoning the process. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 22:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic-ban I see three concerns here. First, the out-of-community consensus !votes at AFD.  Second, the bludgeoning and sheer volume of comments on many of those discussions.  Third, the repeated use of unrelated discussions to grandstand about his deletion opinions.  The only way to address this is for Jack to take a break from deletion-related discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and the duration ? Jack4576 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Frankly I'm not sure an AfD topic ban is going to put this editor on the right path. The overarching issue is that they're sure they understand policies they don't understand, and they push back whenever anyone disagrees with them to the point of really kind of over-the-top bludgeoning, which is happening right here. It looks like 50+ edits have been made in this discussion by Jack4576, which is kind of astounding. They just opened yet another RfC because discussion at Talk:Chicago CRED wasn't going their way. They appear to be trying to tally the comments here in a weird pointy way, as if they've decided a closer needs to discount the opinions of multiple other editors...I kind of feel like the issues at AfD are just what ended up here first. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Users involved in a dispute aren't supposed to be involved with banning decisions.
 * To clarify which users are involved in the dispute is not POINTY. (lmao?) Jack4576 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Administrators aren't supposed to take administrative action with regard to a content dispute they're involved in. That doesn't mean anyone you've ever had a content dispute with can't weigh in here or that their opinion is discounted. Valereee (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think it is important that people involved in the particular dispute are able to be identified
 * The closing admin can weigh appropriately Jack4576 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How in the world are you counting me as being "involved in the particular dispute"? I've barely interacted with you at AfD. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You and I have had a recent lengthy and personal dispute at Chicago CRED's talkpage, that overlaps with the dispute as articulated by JML1148 here Jack4576 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that doesn't make me involved w/re AfD. It means I wouldn't be able to p-block you from editing Chicago CRED, I'd have to bring it here for someone else to take action. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban  - Their conduct has been atrocious at AFD. Non-stop IDHT about the necessity of SIGCOV or non-policy based !votes. I know it takes time to learn Wikipedia's ways, and I'm sympathetic to that...but not when editors aren't making an effort. Sergecross73   msg me  15:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't made an argument that SIGCOV is unnecessary since the 11th of May.
 * I have learned on that issue and been responsive to community feedback. Jack4576 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that you got there eventually, but I never would have guessed that in the AFD I interacted with you in here, where you badgered editors at length over it and never conceded anything. And that AFD ended unanimously against you. Sergecross73   msg me  15:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed that was the last AfD at which I ever argued that. After reflection of that outcome I changed my view on that issue, and since have voted delete consistently across articles where SIGCOV has not been established
 * (excepting an occasional keep on the basis of 'IAR', which is within policy and can be assessed as appropriate by closers) Jack4576 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose all voices should be heard. And the OP ought to keep track of their own AfD double ivotes. We don't tban editors just because we disagree with them, AfD closers are intelligent enough to dismiss ivotes that are not relevant. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jack4576 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave please do not remove my comments from the discussion.
 * Comment: on my count (and keep in mind I am the target, and so am biased) so far the tally is:
 * Community members opposed to a topic ban: Randy Kryn, Lightburst
 * Community members making neutral comments: Silverseren, Spiderone(Talk to Spider) (some positive, some negative as to the proposal)
 * Community members in favour of a topic ban: FormalDude, Lavalizard101, Walt Yoder, LibStar, JML1148, Ravenswing, dlthewave, Timothy, Valereee,  Sergecross73, User:Toddst1
 * I note that LibStar, JML1148, Ravenswing, dlthewave, Valereee, Timothy, User:Toddst1 are all editors that I have been involved in disputes with in RfD (or elsewhere) recently that overlap with the issues complained of here by JML1148. Jack4576 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I note that this is the kind of meretricious, combative bullshit that just keeps digging you a deeper hole. While I haven't checked for the other editors, perhaps you would be so good as to point out the RfD "dispute" you claim to have with me.  Other than a one-off in 2020, every AfD discussion in which you've taken part has been in the last two weeks.  I have participated in only two AfD discussions in that timeframe.  We have participated in only one AfD together.  We responded to neither one's comment, and we both advocated deletion. Articles for deletion/Patty Mayo  You want to walk this comment back?   Ravenswing      16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies I got your account mentally confused with that of User:kashmīrī
 * Indeed? What about Timothy, with whom you had no direct interactions save that you've both participated in the same AfDs? In the hour I just spent going over your AfD record, I could find no interactions with Valereee or Toddst1 either.  What "disputes" do you claim to have with them outside this ANI?   Ravenswing      02:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved administrator who has been watching Jack, I think Jack is capable of changing behavior for the positive. Following discussion with me, he hasn't launched any more ill advised RfCs based on experiences he had at an AfD. feel like Jack's conduct at AfDs has also improved following feedback from editors. What hasn't improved is Jack's single-mindedness about deletion. Everything seems to be viewed through a deletion lens whether it's an RfA or an amendment to ARBPOL. Even that RfA shows an ability to reflect - eventually Jack struck that oppose. The other concerning piece, for me, is the repeated Bludgeoning which is also on display in this thread. Both the single mindedness about deletion and the bludgeoning were the types of behaviors on display at last year's ArbCom case and I would hope through some combination of improved behavior by Jack and community action we can fix this without reaching ArbCom again. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful remarks as always . FWIW, as someone who has been skewered in this forum I sympathize with the feeling that a response to ivotes and comments is needed. But after my experiences in this forum I would advise Jack4576 to stop posting anything at all here, and take a to reflect. Call it a self suspension. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK I will refrain from further comment. Jack4576 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is unfair to characterise a person defending themselves alone, against multiple accusers, as a bludgeoning of discussion.
 * Its inevitable that the volume of my comments in this thread would be high, given there are a large number of distinct accusations being levelled; and I am trying to provide a response those distinct allegations civilly, and appropriately. Jack4576 (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. you could use periodic comments that respond to multiple editors rather than replying to every single person, sometimes multiple times and 2. it is every single person. You're not just replying to people with concerns, you're also replying to people who think there isn't a problem. 2 is what makes it a clear case of bludgeoning. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted, will not happen again. Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should absolutely defend yourself. But a lot of these responses aren't really doing that. Many aren't really constructive or accomplishing anything. I'll stop responding myself now, as to not be the cause of any more of it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should absolutely defend yourself. But a lot of these responses aren't really doing that. Many aren't really constructive or accomplishing anything. I'll stop responding myself now, as to not be the cause of any more of it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose a topic ban. Other AfD participants as well as the closing admin will factor in for themselves the validity (or lack thereof) of Jack’s comments. Jack, meanwhile, needs to reflect on both the concerns raised about civility and positive comments made here about his other contributions.— A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I spot-checked several recent AfDs Jack participated in. I agreed with him about half the time; in those cases, I also !voted against the nomination. I didn't think he was transgressive. Jack can be persistent, just like some of his critics here. If he repeats himself, just tune him out. Use his good stuff and leave the rest. It's just ones and zeros. There's not even ink getting wasted. If we purge people around here based on social skills and popularity, who will be left among us to edit Wikipedia? It's not like many of us were ever the cool kids in school. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support AfD tban for reasons stated above. I actually think this is a troll account because of mocking comments like these, , , (there are more).  // Timothy :: talk  16:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rapid fire AFD spam, 4 AfD votes in 5mins in between two ANI comments:
 * 06:53, 20 May 2023 - Post at ANI,
 * 06:55, 20 May 2023 - two mins later an AfD vote:
 * 06:56, 20 May 2023 - Another rapid fire AfD vote:
 * 06:58, 20 May 2023 - Another rapid fire AfD vote:
 * 07:00, 20 May 2023 - Another rapid fire AfD vote:
 * 07:02, 20 May 2023 - Back to post at ANI:  // Timothy :: talk  16:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All of those AfD's were so simple that they required less than 2 minutes assessment each
 * [271 ] - Clear delete based on Dr vulpes' BEFORE
 * [272 ]- SIGCOV already included in article
 * [273 ] - SIGCOV already included in article
 * [274 ] - SIGCOV obvious.
 * All reasoning was provided for each !vote, this was not spam. Jack4576 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of SIGCOV is incorrect. Here you told me to look through a certain article that contains "SIGCOV", and after looking through it, I found that the name of the subject (Ryan Murphy) is only mentioned once. You also seem to think that the existence of many non-SIGCOV sources somehow amounts to SIGCOV. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another rapid fire AfD series, starts at ANI, then:
 * Followed by 7 rapid fire AfD votes:, , , , , ,
 * Returns to ANI
 * These two examples are from today, while this ANI was in progress.  // Timothy :: talk  16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple votes on the facts Jack4576 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Five of the seven include complaints about LibStar. Indeed, there's more complaining about LibStar than there is evaluation of the articles. Surely you can recognize how that might be seen as combative. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Each was made alongside an evaluation. I do not know what you mean by "more"
 * Its appropriate to call out disruptive editing; the above discussions show policy was clearly not being followed by the AfD nominator. Libstar has requested that I no longer post on his talk page, so the AfD discussion is the appropriate place. Jack4576 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By "more", I meant what I said. The evaluations were perfunctory; the complaints extensive. AfD is for debating whether or not articles should be deleted, not spreading complaints about user conduct across page after page after page. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AFD topic ban - their behaviour is disruptive and they refuse to listen to concerns, instead badgering those who comment. GiantSnowman 16:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AFD topic ban and a broader WP-space or RfC-initiation ban as I see this editor refuses to accept consensus in general. See the nonsense going on at Talk:Chicago CRED where the editor has opened 2 trivial RFCs in 8 days when consensus wasn't going their way.  I see this editor exhibiting numerous signs of WP:TE, specifically WP:REHASH, ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, and in general having WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I would also recommend a strong warning against continued bludgeoning of any future discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. By my count, you have made 84 edits here over the past 12 hours and such a display of disruptive editing right on this board is not likely to help your cause. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have refrained from replying since this was raised by Barkeep49, save as to defend myself from Timothy’s accusation of AfD spam. It is fair for me to counter and point out that those votes were relatively simple. I am not replying to every comment. Jack4576 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By my count you have made 11 posts to this section in less then 90 minutes after Barkeep's comment about bludgeoning. (This is not an invitation to provide further justification of those posts). Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those posts were clearly not a form of bludgeoning. You can’t claim bludgeoning by reference only to the edit count. Jack4576 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AfD topic ban and potentially a broader WP-space or RfC-initiation ban - the comments at ARBPOL and RfA suggest that Jack sees all matters of project governance through the lens of "deletionists vs. inclusionists" and has taken a battleground attitude to the situation. They've further overused RfC processes not only at Chicago CRED but also at WP:Notability (link). This is combined with a constant pattern of demeaning comments towards their discursive opponents. signed,Rosguill talk 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To digress a little, I would also note that the "deletionists vs. inclusionists" analysis of Wikipedia dynamics is shallow, does not speak to editors' actual motivations, and that overly-lenient inclusion policies can actually be a disservice to marginalized topics, contrary to Jack's continuous comments positioning themselves as the defender of the downtrodden. We don't do the subaltern a favor by having solid content policies for anglocentric topics and turning marginalized topics into EverybodyWiki. But this is all food for thought, rather than reasoning for a ban; the ban is warranted due to the breaches of civility and abuses of process, not due to the positions adopted. signed,Rosguill talk 17:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The enforcement bias problem is caused by the pattern of behaviour inherent to those responsible for executing the policy, rather than the not the text of the policy as written. Local, non-Anglo, and global south content faces systemic barriers to reach the 'significant' threshold of SIGCOV, due to the subjective biases of those responsible for AfD nominations. Jack4576 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jack, if you’re worried about Anglo biases, look for the same articles on other languages’ Wikipedias. If they don’t have an article, that’ll tell you something. If they do have an article, they should have references you can look at with something like Google Translate. Also, note that our cross-wiki links are not comprehensive; if you don’t see a x-wiki link, go directly to the appropriate Wikipedia and search there. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jack, I've written on this at length, and I'd dare say that based on your arguments so far your engagement with the topic has been rather superficial. Personalizing this as the individual failing of specific editors, rather than a complex problem produced by the interaction of our epistemology with the broader state of scholarship globally, is a recipe for getting people to dig their heels in and ignore you, and ignoring the potential dangers of having unverifiable content about non-anglosphere topics makes you seem insincere about addressing the problem of systemic bias rather than using it as a cudgel to advance your preconceptions about article creation and deletion. Further personalizing the matter in any context other than an ANI thread specifically evincing a pattern of conscious racist behavior begins to cross the line into the realm of unjustifiable personal attacks that are liable to get you blocked. signed,Rosguill talk 17:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on deletion broadly I did not want to find myself in this camp, as I had a positive introspective interaction with Jack at WP:NSUBPOL. However, one thing I think a lot of people are overlooking is how disparaging some of Jack's comments are. At Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian politician), Jack states . This reads like an attempt at gatekeeping; Jack, I know you said it wasn't but it really seems that way. However, the big kicker for me is his comment at Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (May 2023) . This is such a childish battleground mentality and is emblematic of a user incapable of working collaboratively with others. Curbon7 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you as a thoughtful and careful editor so I am responding to your ivote. I agree that the blatent condescension is problematic. My question is, can we admonish them? - because it feels excessive to go all the way to Tban without trying other measures. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [Inserting my 2¢ here] Jack has shown room for growth, for instance when I asked them to strike a sentence 12 hours or so ago and they did (with an unasked-for but appropriate apology). They've been asked to stop bludgeoning this discussion, and I'd hope to see evidence that they can restrain themselves in the next few hours. If they manage that, then a plain-language warning/admonishment seems likely to work. They won't agree with it, but we don't ask people to change their minds, just how they edit.
 * But if this binfire of a thread continues, or has to be restarted in the next few weeks... well, then a t-ban it is, I'd reckon. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be open to an admonishment as a final warning, but it has to come with an assurance from Jack himself that he'll be on his best-behavior going forth. I think Jack is here with good intentions, and to reiterate one of my previous points it is obviously ok to consider yourself to be a staunch "inclusionist" or staunch "deletionist" (though again I do find such labeling reductive); however, Jack cannot be insulting people, either by throwing around the term "deletionist" disparagingly or by implying they do not have the prerequisite knowledge to comment on a topic. Curbon7 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting that they've been warned many times, and most recently were given a final warning here on their talk page, to which they replied: Consider your 'final warning' ignored.  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 19:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was why I brought it here so quickly. I was going to leave it a few days and see if they calmed down after leaving that, but instead they made a snarky comment. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 01:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban Constantly ranting about "deletionists" shows that the user has a battleground attitude, per the recent ArbCom case on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban - Users should be allowed to vote how they want in various AfD discussions, whether they vote yes or no. Users should not feel like they have to vote various ways to please other users or to meet percent quotas. I don't have an issue with asking the user not to bludgeon people though. The meaning and enforcement of various policies is always interpreted in different ways here. I also don't think most people here really understand how bizarre it is to people outside of the wikipedia bubble that an encyclopedia exists that often rejects reasonable information about various subjects. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBan Reading through the linked diffs, I see an editor wasting a lot of other editors time, and being generally unkind to everyone else while doing so. Very Average Editor (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on deletion broadly – Jack4576 has shown that he is incapable of collaborating with others through various Wikipedia venues. The excessive bludgeoning and his inability to get the point (presented in the various diffs above) and his dismissing a final warning with Consider your 'final warning' ignored do not lead me to believe his behavior will change. When told a certain guideline does not match his interpretation, for instance, Jack attempts to change that guideline; this is disruptive when done excessively. At AfDs, they've repeatedly misrepresented SIGCOV and GNG (for example, here he asked me to look through an article that he claimed contained "SIGCOV", which turned out not to be true.) I am not convinced by those opposing a topic ban above. The topic ban is a preventive measure designed to reduce the likelihood that disruptive editing will take place. I see no indication that Jack is going to edit at AfDs less disruptively, especially when considering his response to the final warning, which came weeks after other previous warnings on his talk page. This is not an attempt to force an editor to "feel like they have to vote various ways to please other users or to meet percent quotas." Nythar  (💬-🍀) 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN. This user's participation at AfD has been an enormous timesink and given his continued assertion that everyone else is wrong about what counts toward GNG, I do not see this being remedied anytime soon. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also support any further bans, due to his repeated abuse of other WP-space mechanisms. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding BLP problems: In working on an AfD just now I came across an example of problems Jack is causing at AfD.
 * The AfD is here
 * Jack's comment is here, specifically they state: ...as well as an telegraph.co.uk article regarding her having been identified as personally riding a rollercoaster alongside the DPRK's Supreme Leader.
 * This is a BLP and this incident at the theme park was a serious diplomatic scandal. There statement at AfD is completely false: The subject of the article was not the person photographed as the source clearly states. Jack clearly didn't read the source before their keep spam and in the process attributed a diplomatic scandal to an innocent person.
 * This goes to their refusal to accept policy (BLP and V) and notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

*:I'd support this. My main objection to his conduct has to do with his battleground mentality. If this was just a matter of "being an inclusionist," that of course is not remotely -- in of itself -- worthy of sanction. Changing my mind here. After extensive examination of Jack's AfD record, I'm far less sanguine about him participating in them at any level. He routinely votes based on spurious rationales, routinely chastises noms for unproven allegations of failure to perform WP:BEFORE (while making rapid-fire Keep votes on multiple AfDs, therefore plainly not troubling himself to do any research) and has far more than his share of clashes.   Ravenswing     01:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN from AfD. I see the issue here as bludgeoning and CIR re: SIGCOV and GNG. I take to heart the idea above from some users that we should avoid penalizing editors just for preferring "yes" votes. But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is the misrepresentation of sources, and the repeated bludgeoning of discussions. If these issues extend into other namespaces, then we should consider an overall site ban. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN from AfD. To the best of my knowledge I have had no interactions with Jack4576, although I did see his appalling vote at the RfA, where he voted oppose essentially because "the candidate supports policy and I disagree with that policy". But his behavior in this discussion has been equally appalling. After the bludgeoning issue was raised many times above and after strong advice from Lightburst, he finally agreed to stop posting in this thread. He then proceeded to post in this thread nine more times in the next hour, even arguing that he is not bludgeoning because I am not replying to every comment. If he is unable to stop from bludgeoning in a thread where his bludgeoning conduct is being discussed, it seems unlikely he will refrain from doing so elsewhere. Equally concerning to me is his repeated misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of policy. In this very thread he has demonstrated incorrect understanding of WP:OWNTALK and WP:CBAN, and when this was pointed out them (by several different editors in each case), they did not respond with something like "oh, I see what you mean; I was wrong". They either ignored the responses or continued to argue their incorrect understand of policy. This does not seem to be behavior of an editor who is able to easily accept feedback about their misreading of policy. CodeTalker (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A novel allegation of my spamming of threads was raised, and it was necessary to post an additional comment in response to those allegations. That clearly does not go to the bludgeoning issue. Jack4576 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support PARTIAL AfD & RfA ban. The problem is with Jack's behaviour and specifically with their constant disruptive arguing; not with their support of the keep option. Therefore, I propose that Jack be allowed to cast a single !vote accompanied by a concise justification, but without tagging or even mentioning any other participant, and be disallowed to post anything beyond that, including responding or commenting. This I think would be a fair, targeted response to the identified problem. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  21:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Newimpartial was fairly recently put under a very concrete no-bludgeoning restriction. I see a lot of commentary above about bludgeoning specifically (and, I mean, just look at how this thread has gone), I wonder if something similar would be worth a try.  --JBL (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, considering Jack's made an absurd 91 edits to this page, all of which are from this thread, let alone the bludgeoning on AfD. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 00:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * JML1148, you yourself have made over 25 edits here. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread is about a particular editor. It must feel *very* personal. If a number of editors were saying a number of negative things about you, wouldn't you feel  you needed to respond? Would it not have your quivering attention? I am not defending the behavior at AfD, but bludgeoning there is a different problem than the voluminous posts at this particular discussion.  That said, Jack4576, perhaps it would be better to respond less often, quality over quantity, eh?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem with 91 edits to a discussion in which he's defending himself! It's got to feel to him like he's been dragged into the Star Chamber -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And how many of us are objecting to his extreme combativeness, as opposed to his record at AfD? I am very disinterested in multiple iterations of "Yeah, but these OTHER editors suck, whaddabout them?"  The way to allay worries about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is not to double and triple down on it.   Ravenswing      01:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I should state that, while I will defend his ability to respond, I don't think Jack is helping his case here one iota. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is that, after agreeing to stop commenting on this page after a comment by Barkeep, they continued to bludgeon the page and then said that they weren't because they weren't replying to every comment. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 01:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My comments since Barkeep49's intervention have been to defend myself from a novel and distinct allegation of AfD spam from Timothy. (and from editor's bizarrely claiming that doing such a thing amounts to bludgeoning) Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is that you are spamming AfD, especially after I opened this ANI discussion. You have just made 8 !votes in the span of 10 minutes, then returned to ANI to make this comment. Looking through your edit history, there are many of these patterns, not including bludgeoning individual discussions. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those votes were problematic and all conformed with policy. Jack4576 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Basing a judgment entirely upon the headline of an article you say you cannot access is, well, a bit problematic. Headlines are not reliable sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're being quite kind in calling that response a bit problematic. At level best it's ignorance of the requirements of SIGCOV that ought to disqualify any AfD vote such an editor makes.  At worst, it's willful ignorance that's just this side of trolling.   Ravenswing      17:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from AfD and from deletion discussions, broadly construed. I do not recall interacting with this editor previously, so I think that I am uninvolved. The sheer number of their comments in this conversation is mind-boggling. I see stunning misinterpretations of policy. I see endless wikilawyering and nitpicking. I see repeated refusals to recognize and accept community consensus. I see arguing for novel policy interpretations in inappropriate places. I see bizarre comments that are either trolling or functionally equivalent to trolling. I see rapid-fire AfD !votes that are little more than repetitive personal attacks on the nominator. Our most precious asset by far is the volunteer time of our thoughtful, competent, productive editors. Those editors who squander that precious asset by endless argumentation cause damage to the project that must be stopped. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from AfD per above + after closing some AfDs Jack's arguments aren't even IAR, they seem more about POINT. 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AfD ban my sock sense is still tingling, but will let it go. This user does not seem to function well in meta-discussions about inclusionism vs. deletionism, having a strong opinion is fine, but hammering others incessantly with it is unbecoming. If this somehow does not pass, then a one-afd-one vote restriction is choice #2. Zaathras (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from AfD User does not constructively contribute to discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban for AfD first I would like to disclose that I opened an AfD here and Jack !voted keep. I agree with the final consensus to keep and I probably should have done a more thorough BEFORE. However, I felt that Jack's comments were not constructive, took a look at their AfD stats, and later came across his !vote at RfA. Their understading of notability guidelines is poor, but I don't think that's the reason for the ban. I think the topic ban should be put in place due to their uncivil comments. Going through their comments in their AfD discussions and their talk page shows that they do not interact with other editors in a civil manner even when their !votes match community consensus. I'm not familiar with the process at ANI so if my !vote doesn't follow standard conventions or expectations feel free to disregard my !vote when closing the discussion. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * friend, you opened an AfD on numberphile
 * Merely expressing ‘bafflement’ at a nomination -that- absurd ought not be considered uncivil. Such noms are to the detriment of the project (as a time waste, among other issues). Such comments are fairly restrained
 * I acknowledge that my understanding of the SIGCOV rule was incorrect in that AfD, I have learned and am not repeating that argument anymore Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban. People should be able to express their opinions, and if his comments are non-policy based it takes extremely little effort for the closer to discount them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Jack comes across to me as a good-faith but perhaps somewhat inexperienced AfD contributor. In some cases this has led to not-very-helpful contributions to AfDs, or mere pile-ons, but in other cases it has provided a helpful fresh perspective. I have good faith, also, that when their comments are not adequately supported by our guidelines, they will be duly discounted by the closing admins on the AfDs. We should be extremely wary of banning people from contributing based on our perceived quality of their opinions, and I don't think the inconvenience of wading through a few low-quality opinions when making a close justifies a topic ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you David, although it appears the incumbent perspective is having its day today. Jack4576 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is another case DE where Jack refuses to accept policy and votes to keep a BLP even though they admit it does not have sources, because in their words, we should keep "To stay on the safe side". The 404 source in question is to the subject's school newspaper (which is clear to all from the reftext) and obviously fails IS. To claim we should keep BLPs even when they know their is no sources "To stay on the safe side" shows they either cannot understand WP:BLP or refuse to accept BLP.
 * Here is another example from an unsourced BLP, their claim to keeping this BLP is "WP needs more Africa content". .  // Timothy :: talk  21:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the case of a BLP, the ‘safe side’ in a borderline AfD should always be “delete”!!!
 * A poorly referenced, lightly watched article on an obscure person carries the greatest potential for harm in real life.
 * This slight bias towards deletion shouldn’t apply to other articles.— A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. Jack4576 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban from AfD only for now per and  who said it better than I could. The conducts at several AfDs, most prominently Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian politician) (which I'm uninvolved in) seem to evince a battleground attitude. Given that Jack has already been reminded/warned multiple times on the matter, e.g., User talk:Jack4576/Archive 1, User talk:Jack4576/Archive 1, User talk:Jack4576/Archive 1 etc.... a topic ban from AfD is a logical step. However, I think that's sufficient for the time being. The user has contributed less than desirably to other pages within Wikipedia namespaces, i.e., unjustified RfCs on notability and superficial GA reviews (e.g., Talk:How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations/GA1 is a drive-by review, passed around 20 minutes after starting the review with no comments on improvements whatsoever, which is quite rare for GA reviews), but for the time being I am willing to AGF that participation in these other areas within the project seem to be of good-faith and common mistakes for inexperienced editors to make, instead of being related to broader issues, given that the editor can contribute positively in other areas, such as the interesting and well-written law articles.  VickKiang   (talk)  21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is Jack reviewing GAs? He hardly has a reasonable understanding of almost any policy. Those GA reviews should be removed and the articles rereviewed. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 21:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll submit re-reviews for all of the GA's he passed that I don't think are at that standard. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 22:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've listed the one that VickKiang linked, the other that Jack reviewed was failed, and there is significant ongoing discussion that I don't want to intervene with. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 22:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban from AfD because of the editor's proclivity to WP:BLUDGEON, which he is also doing here, so in addition to the topic ban, he should also be warned not to bludgeon any discussions. The editor sometimes takes a long time to understand other editors' positions due to a weak grip on notability guidelines. This, combined with a tendency to make numerous comments and replies, causes situations which can't be described in any other way but being a waste of time... or maybe a very slow learning process. An example of that (ultimately changed the !vote to keep after being introduced to a simple and widely publicized notability concept, so all of that energy expenditure was for next to nothing). —Alalch E. 22:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AFD Topic Ban. Having reviewed the evidence here I this is required to prevent disruption. The incorrect understanding of policy + the tendency to bludgeon discussions with their incorrect understanding are just resulting in a massive time sink. I don't see any evidence that things are going to improve on their own in the immediate future - even in the section below they are still insisting that comments from involved editors do not count towards consensus, despite it having been explained to them multiple times that this is incorrect and having no basis in policy (WP:CBAN) 192.76.8.64 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is another one of Jack's disruptive claims, "The photograph File:OneWorldTradeCenterLongBeach.jpg provides a strong visual argument that this building is notable in multiple regards ".. Jack is actually claiming that a photo of a building taken for the Commons shows notability. I said this before, but I think this is more evidence this individual is trolling; claiming a photo by an editor shows notability is beyond the point where anyone can AGF. The closer ignored the claim but had to relist because of it.  // Timothy :: talk  01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That was not a disruptive claim, and was acknowledged as correct by User:Doncram. Visual sources may also be reliable sources. Conveniently, you leave that part out. Jack4576 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is completely wrong. Pictures are not reliable sources that prove notability. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 02:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support AfD topic ban and anti-bludgeoning restriction. Any editor, regardless of the subject, who bludgeons a discussion creates a timesink for everyone else to wade through, restating the same points over and over and expecting a different response is pointless, bordering near insanity. This is not to say Jack is doing this, but it is coming close. Also per Ravenswing above, voting implies that the editor in question who is casting the vote has done a BEFORE check, so as to see whether the subject meets GNG, five votes in seven minutes does not instill confidence whichever side of the childish deletionist/inclusionist fence you sit on. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When SIGCOV is already linked within an article, and a keep vote can be cast on that basis; a BEFORE check is unnecessary.
 * Those Keep votes were quick because SIGCOV already existed and was linked. It took a moment's glance to evaluate GNG in those instances.
 * Where GNG isn't established through existing sources, I always perform a BEFORE before casting a deletion vote. Jack4576 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You once !voted keep with the assumption that a source's title proves SIGCOV, which is not true per WP:HEADLINE. I still don't think you understand what "significant coverage" implies. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 02:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Somehow I get the feeling that if the votes were Delete, we wouldn't be here. If people feel that the comments are illogical, let the comments speak for themselves. No need to censor what you don't agree with. --Rschen7754 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Closure
I believe that there is a emerging concensus to TBAN Jack from AfD. As I leave this comment, I count 20 !votes for a TBAN (including myself and Kashmiri's partial TBAN vote) to 6 !votes opposing a TBAN (including Jack and Barkeep's comment, which wasn't a !vote but was in support of Jack), with 2 editors making comments but having no clear opinion. I'm not that familiar with AN/I, so I am wondering if an admin should close this now or leave it for a bit longer so that more editors can comment. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BANPOL, it needs to stay open for a minimum of 24 hours. El_C 00:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. We'll see what it's like once 24 hours have elapsed since the start of the discussion. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 00:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see quite such a convenient consensus. I see a lot of discussion with extensive "comment" sections that don't commit to supporting, and a handful of well-expressed opposes too. And this is not supposed to be a simple pile-on vote is it? For what it's worth I oppose the topic ban strongly. I disagree completely with Jack's arguments, viewpoint, and complete disregard of policy on notability, but (1) how difficult is it for an AfD closer to ignore non-policy-based, short "keeps" like Jack's? And (2) Jack is what happens when you have an open, collaborative encyclopaedia: people disagree with you. Banning Jack looks uncomfortably like banning disagreement. Not a great message to send. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course consensus is not a matter of counting, but 24 supports and 4 opposes is a clear consensus in anybody's book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Plainly Elemimele disagrees with the consensus -- fair enough -- but that doesn't equate to a consensus not existing.   Ravenswing      17:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He has explicitly said that he does not see a consensus, and not that he merely disagrees with it. Jack4576 (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) not when a pile-on plainly exists, (2) not when many of the ‘support’ votes are involved in the disagreement
 * Far from clear really Jack4576 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You say "pile-on," I say that a great many otherwise uninvolved editors agree with the sentiment. (Any interaction with you I've had is in this thread; I'm an example of the numerous editors who became accustomed to your way of doing things right here, and who haven't liked what we've seen.) With that, how many comments is this now for you after you averred that you were done commenting here.  Ten or so?   Ravenswing      00:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As A. B. has noted, 'bludgenoning' is not so much an issue when responding to direct questions and direct allegations in a thread about my own banning. I've been restrained in the volumne of my replies since Barkeep49 raised it as an issue.
 * You yourself need to watch the volume of your comments in this discussion. You're approaching a problematic volume, especially in this 'close' section.
 * There are also a fair number of editors here that have opposed a topic ban, which you do not acknowledge. Jack4576 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly two days since this discussion was opened, and there is still a clear consensus for a TBAN of Jack from AfD; as I count it, it is 27 !votes for to 8 !votes against. I think it's time to close this discussion now, as there has been sufficient time for editors to comment and there is a clear consensus, especially as Jack has continued to make unwise AfD !votes while this discussion has been ongoing. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 23:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * JML1148 I think it would be preferable if someone other than yourself performed the close. You are involved in the dispute and it would be inappropriate for you to be the one to observe consensus
 * 27 - 8 is not the count; insofar as a “count” is at all relevant anyway
 * (1) it is not a simple vote, (2) per the banning policy, editors involved in a dispute are not to be counted for the purpose of forming a consensus toward banning. Many of the voters above are involved in the AfDs, raising concerns that this is banning disagreement. To avoid that perception, only editors not involved should be counted for that purpose
 * JML for all your accusations of bludgeoning, you have made way too many comments in this thread; which isn’t even about you, and now here you are attempting to prematurely close the discussion
 * I also note you’ve just gone and opened a reassessment on one of my GA reviews quite randomly. Feels like harassment really. Glass houses, stones, etcetera
 * Jack4576 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Many?" Prove it.  Let's see diffs: evidence of every single time an editor involved in this ANI complaint has clashed with you on an AfD.  You've already been shown up to get it wrong by claiming that I was one of them.   Ravenswing      00:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just did it myself: looked through every AfD discussion you've been in before this ANI complaint was opened. (There's an hour-plus of my life I'm not getting back.) Leaving aside that it shows up numerous cases where your expressed grounds were shaky or spurious (routinely and without proof accusing noms of failing to perform WP:BEFORE, quoting essays as the reason for keeping an article, misunderstanding policies or guidelines, inventing your own spurious non-policy based rationales, and the all-time "Keep because it would be a shame to delete this work," although your argument that one subject was notable solely because someone had uploaded a photo of it to Wikimedia was also a doozy), while there were some where you and participants in this thread had civil disagreements, you outright clashed with only two: LibStar and JML1148. Two editors comprise "many?" Seriously?   Ravenswing      01:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The editors I've clashed with at Talk:Chicago CRED also have mysteriously shown up here en-masse; despite my participation at that talk page being civil and reasonable. Other editors I've clashed with at AfDs (that you missed(?) how(?) I thought you spent an hour going through it(?)); include: Nythar, TipsyElephant, plus all of the others I brought up earlier in this thread.
 * If this isn't a pile-on and banning disagreement, I don't know what possibly could meet that threshold. As Randy Kryn has pointed out above, the 'deletion crew' appears to be having its day. Well done to you all. This thread is a joke. Reasonable minds may differ, and I count the reasonable minds in this discussion are far from unanimous. Jack4576 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just Jack desperately trying to spin it to discount the "many" that advocate topic bans should be disregarded. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Jack is again spamming keep votes at AfD, 5 votes in 7 minutes. .  // Timothy :: talk  01:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong, not spam, simple votes on the facts, with reasons accompanying the votes.
 * Primarily in instances where SIGCOV already included within the articles. Jack4576 (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you think you can do an adequate WP:BEFORE check, AND type out your response, in a minute flat? That's what you're asking us to believe?   Ravenswing      02:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources were already included in the article in most of those votes. This can be determined at a glance after opening the articles. I'm tired of replying to your repeated comments here   Ravenswing  , let some other editors get a word in. Jack4576 (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I guess this is frowned upon, Jack is far from the only AfD participant who does this, some do it on a regular basis. Picking this habit as a point-of-order disregards those many others and seems to imply that Jack is alone in doing so. He isn't. And Jack, please consider that these commentors are acting in good faith - they actually believe that the best way to solve a problem is to ban it and not to allow you to grow into a better editor. You seem to enjoy AfD, and just need to watch your language, read and act on Wikipedia's Five Pillars, and not display such open hostility towards other editors. Breaking those habits go along with the learning curve. I'd probably ban you from AfD for a week, maybe two, yeah, that's the ticket, but going from zero to indef in a single leap doesn't seem fair and shows that maybe other editors aren't accepting that your intentions are in good faith. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the purpose of a WP:BEFORE in a notability discussion is to obtain additional sources. If I can already see enough sources in the article, (if the nomination reason is only stated to be notability) I reach my conclusion on notability then and there. For 'delete' votes, I always perform WP:BEFORE
 * I note your message Randy Kryn; understood and appreciated Jack4576 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only is no one compelling you to respond to me, this is what, something like your fifteenth comment after you stated that you weren't going to comment any more? To use one of your repeated catchphrases, pfft.   Ravenswing      04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hypocritical behaviour demonstrated in its completeness by your comment here. You are not the subject of this banning discussion, your over-participation in this discussion lacks excuse. Jack4576 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing, you’re up to 14 or 15 comments yourself since this discussion opened 20 May — and you’re not the person having to defend yourself like Jack is.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — here you can see Jack spamming "Question: has the nominator fulfilled WP:BEFORE?" on multiple AfDs without further explanation (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). Nythar  (💬-🍀) 06:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Request a ban for Flamelai
user:Flamelai has a long history of harassing other users. They are calling others as western watchdog since 2022 and this has been lasted for a year. The most recent case was in May of 2023, when they called user: Philip Cross as a western dog on their talk pages. This user has been warned for terrible editing behaviours twice last year, but they just replied with "yes, western watchdog". Wow, looking at the edits being reverted and recent behaviours, I believe this man really need a ban to stop. -Lemonaka‎ 16:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Enough of that. NOTHERE indeffed. The edits 10+ years ago weren't bad on a spot check, but everything this year is a mess. Courcelles (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Courcelles After thought again, is this a compromised account? Do we need a check for account's security? Their edits not only here, but also on Chinese Wikipedia are both becoming messy recently. -Lemonaka‎  19:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's only one edit within the time limit of CU here, so I'm not sure it would show anything useful no matter if the account was compromised or not. I'm surprised to see 100,000+ edits on zhwiki compared to such useless edits here these last years. Courcelles (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll contact Chinese community ASAP. Very strange behaviour for such an established user. -Lemonaka‎  19:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * UPD:zh:Wikipedia:傀儡調查/案件/Flamelai CU requested on Chinese Wikipedia -Lemonaka‎  08:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please close this case. On Chinese Wikipedia they confirmed account was not compromised. -Lemonaka‎  07:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Good faith ip who lacks competency
An IP address, 23.233.149.194, has been making a lot of edits but a lot of them have just been unconstructive and they seem to fall within the bounds of WP:CIR. Their edits are almost all minute and grammar related, however, they're rife with spelling mistakes and a lot seem to not have any real purpose. I assumed good faith and left a warning on their talk page but they have edited dozens of times since and there have seem to have been little to no change in their editing pattern. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 23.233.149.194 has already received two more warnings since yesterday for edits such as <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk  18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Some more good faith edits that aren't constructive    <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk  02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

MiltenR once again
Please see this earlier discussion. This user is doing long standing POV pushing. Now calling Bulgars being Turkic a fringe theory apparently. see  Beshogur (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * User is definitely being disruptive, and seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Very obvious POV issues here, I think the standard offer is most appropriate here. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 01:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they were blocked earlier from editing article mainspace due to edit warring. This behaviour can't continue though. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

USER:Longway22 breached an rules again and again
As you all can see, the user continues breaching an WP:POINT, WP:PA, WP:EW, WP:CIV and WP:GAME by continuous edtiting his digression, which contains personal attacks to me, as an importent teil of the RFC on the Talk:Transnational authoritarianism（1/2）. He did it intentionally not in one day to avoid breaching an WP:3RRNO, but his behavuor is a long Edit-war and using Wikipedia policies in bad faith in fact.

And I have warned him with a page before(diff).(MINQI (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC))
 * You should not be warning them with a vandalism template, their edits may be disruptive, but they are not vandalism. WP:VANDALISM has a very specific meaning. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK,I don't know which template should be used. I just found "PageName ~ (suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption)", which is more suitable than other vandalism templates to his behavuor. Thank you for your reminder. MINQI (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a (bafflingly complex) list of escalating warning templates at Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates, but uw-disruptive1 and its children are useful for when it's not vandalism but it is... well, disruptive.
 * But please don't jump to a Level 2 warning to start off with. It's tempting – very very tempting – and we've all done it at some point, but it's counterproductive: the next editor who wants to warn a user has to decide whether to go to Level 3 for a second offence, or to not warn at all until a third offence that would warrant a Level 3 kicks in.
 * If the disruptive editor continues, the warnings are out of whack when an admin reviews them prior to deciding whether to block and for how long. This makes more work for our admins and potentially leads to more disruption whilst the admin is deciding what to do. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking on,, would you find Twinkle a useful tool? It automates a lot of processes, including providing a drop-down list of common warnings at various levels and providing the standard format for user talk page posts automatically.
 * As with all automated tools, you remain personally responsible for the edits you make with it, just as you do with your non-automated edits, but used responsibly it can cut down on the number of templates and processes you need to try to keep in your head when doing stuff around here! — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. MINQI (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Conversation in article talk space" templates ( Talk:Article ). Thank you again for your help. MINQI (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, @MINQI, why not have a try on Wp:aiv for obvious vandal? It's significantly faster than Wp:Ani -Lemonaka‎  23:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest as other local member have suggested,YOU and staffs should review my full report that have been reverted by Grachester ,I would like be same of other member in zhwiki that keep limited interactive actions with the one.PLease just read it. Longway22 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IN simple word,the case in Transnational authoritarianism is an extended front of MINQI the same acts in zhwiki Longway22 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Longway22 Such long reports should be filed here, not on WP:AIV. WP:AIV is for obvious vandalism, spam or sockpuppetry. So both of you came to the wrong place and made reports more time-consuming.BTW, if both of you cannot get along with each other, you can have a try for IBAN -Lemonaka‎  16:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice but I think it should give what he has done a suitable sentence——his behaviour is disruptive but not enough to vandalism. I will do that with Article if he does it again. MINQI (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Stalking by sockpuppets of Belteshazzar
I am bringing this up here because I think this has gone beyond a "simple" case of sockpuppetry. User:Belteshazzar is a blocked user with a whole string of sockpuppet reports behind him and an open SPI case which would benefit from attention: Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar. There is a LTA case at Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar (largely written by myself) which explains his nonsense, to the extent that it is explicable. Belteshazzar's behaviour transcends sockpuppetry in the way that he uses his sockpuppets to stalk his perceived enemies on Wikipedia. He has done this repeatedly to User:Psychologist Guy and to myself who, not coincidentally, are the two people who have reported his sockpuppets the most often. For example, almost as soon as I get involved with a discussion on Talk:Drag Panic he starts editing Drag Panic, an article which none of his sockpuppets have touched before. The edit itself is insignificant but the point is that he clearly wants me to know that he is watching my edits. This is harassment, whether he intends it as such or not. He possibly thinks that this is legitimate "retaliation" because I am watching and reverting his edits pending his latest IPs getting blocked (hint! hint!) but that is not how this works. I am not sure what can be done. Are there any ranges of proxy IPs that could be blocked for a good long period that might help? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it is harassment. In my case it has been happening for about a year and a half, this is not something that has only been happening a few days or weeks so it is inexcusable. The stalking was raised in February 2023 at this noticeboard . An admin spoke to Belteshazzar on a proxy IP he was using back then and told him to stop doing it. Before this, two other admins have spoken to Belteshazzar and told him to stop the stalking as it is harassment. One admin described the stalking as creepy in the SPI which is very true. Usually when I create a new article now or edit one, Belteshazzar makes a trivial edit directly after me. It's creepy in the sense you just want to be left alone. This user will stalking my recent editing history to harass. It's gets to the point where myself may not want to edit to the full extent I would normally be editing. Obviously anyone can edit here but it isn't right to have a banned user follow you around and make trivial edits directly after you have edited an article. I don't think it is fair to put up with this like I have for a year and a half.
 * Because the harassment has gone on for so long, I would like to file a request for Belteshazzar to be globally banned . I have created nearly 280 articles on Wikipedia. The negative experience with Belteshazzar is pissing me off and not making editing experience on this website as enjoyable as it should be, it is also wasting other users time dealing with his nonsense. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Belteshazzar hasn't been doing anything to me, but, I had a few interactions with him some years ago and I've had his SPI and LTA and such watchlisted and I've been reading them for years now. Longer term blocks of proxy IPs and a global ban are warranted. Leijurv (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please understand that I am extremely frustrated, due to events which you are unaware of. But I will stop doing what is being complained about here, if these are treated as legitimate edits: I explained my reasons for those changes, in previous edit summaries if not in the ones linked. You don't even have to accept all of my changes; just treat them as you would treat edits by a legitimate user. The only one that should not simply be restored is at Charles Ingram, as there have been subsequent edits, but I'm pretty sure that many users have tools that make it easier to reintegrate things. I would do the work manually, but that article is semi-protected. 49.49.51.160 (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are a serial harasser and stalker and have never apologised for your disruptive and creepy behaviour which has been going on for years . I am filing a complaint to the WMF and hopefully will have your account globally banned. Per WP:EVADE we do not need to keep or restore any of your disruptive edits which you are making on proxy IPs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits on Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics and Charles Ingram that you linked to are not legitimate edits, they are disruptive. You have disrupted so many articles that they have to be protected long-term from your persistent socking. Do you realise you are ruining editing experience for legitimate IPs so they cannot edit those articles which have been locked because of you? There is no self-reflection from your part about your behaviour at all. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you will stop vandalising Wikipedia if we allow your chosen edits to stand? And you will continue to vandalise Wikipedia if we do not? That's blackmail. The sense of entitlement here is absurd. Obviously, I have no idea what "events which you are unaware of" refers to but I assume that you mean something off-wiki. I fully support the request for a global ban to protect Wikipedia but also for your own sake. If you have off-wiki problems in your life then nothing you do here is going to help you with that. Please get off Wikipedia and seek help from appropriate sources. DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

User:X4n6
Came up on my radar today as they were edit warring contentious material back into a BLP,, ,. Was going to suggest a topic ban from BLPs but given their absolutely consistent battleground behavior on the article talk page,, , , their eagerness to go on the offensive with anyone who gives them feedback, , , , and their unresponsiveness to feedback on their talk page, , I think a NOTHERE ban is more appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to topic ban me from my own talk page? After you posted this on my page, I responded with this. Which I meant. The rest is a discussion on the subject page where the edit log clearly shows I have patiently answered every question from every user. Often more than once when they haven't bothered to read the answer already given to another user. No doubt, if you weren't so uncivil in how you approach folks on their talk pages, you'd get responses more to your liking. Beyond that, you haven't even engaged in much discussion on the subject page. You have exactly 3 contributions to this discussion: an opinion supported by no WP policy here, a header change, which you unilaterally performed without either discussion or asking me, the author - which is required by SECTIONHEADINGOWN and here, a revert which is pretty flagrant edit-warring. Boomerang much? So should I report you? But suggesting a ban of opposing positions when you can't offer any policies that support your own position, is a pretty transparent attempt at trying to get your way by default. X4n6 (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SECTIONHEADINGOWN does not "require" asking the "author" before changing a section header. I suggest you read it more closely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per SECTIONHEADINGOWN: "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible." You don't think that's a "requirement?" X4n6 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes, X4n6, reading those diffs — can you try to be a little nicer? These other editors are human beings, too. Can’t we all just get along?— A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly nice, thanks. But if you are arrogant or uncivil on my talk page as your opening comment, you've already abdicated good faith. Beyond that, this edit exemplifies my responses on the article's talk page. As you'll see, I actually went out of my way to ping folks who disagreed with me, to give them every opportunity to respond and discuss. If you have a problem with that, I'd be very interested in hearing it. X4n6 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEM regarding "abdicated good faith", whatever that means. There are no recent examples of uncivil messages on your talk page that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Page block. It's probably too soon for a NOTHERE block, though I won't stand in the way if another admin thinks differently. I have page blocked X4n6 from Lauren Boebert and its talkpage for a month. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
 * An AP2 topic ban looks worth considering… Courcelles (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Goodness. So listen, I've been around here a few minutes and seen a few things. But I readily confess that I've never experienced a block this long in all my years. And for a cause that wasn't even explained here by the blocking admin. No warning? No discussion? No AGF? So would it be too much to ask for any of that before a month long topic block, or has that horse already left the barn? Before offering me the option to appeal on my talk page, I think it's only fair to ask for clarification of the charges. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the reason(s) for a month long topic block of a long time user be crystal clear. X4n6 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "No warning"??!!, , , . You do understand your talk page history is visible, right? VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, VQuakr., I think you also misunderstand about the length of blocks — you can't compare a page-block with your three previous sitewide blocks. A month would be long for a sitewide block. For a page-block, it's short, for me personally probably the shortest I've ever given. In order to be any use, these blocks have to keep an editor away from a page for an amount of time that actually gives the page and its other editors a well-earned rest from the disruption. Incidentally, by "topic block", do you mean "topic ban"? That's what Courcelles is suggesting (I have some sympathy), and is a horse of a different colour. Click on my link if you're interested. As for your request for "clarification of the charges" (which I didn't, as you say, "even" explain here on ANI), I'm not seeing it. My message to you, on your page, was, I thought, painstakingly clear. You'll have to explain what more you want. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC).

Gondolabúrguer
Called me a "Communist militant" Ertrinken (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional info. This guy is a crosswiki vandal Ertrinken (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is enough for a cross-wiki ban. It's time to report to the global administrators. Din  oz1  (chat?) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree Ertrinken (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "sai minion" is a term used by Communist militants in Brazil and which Ertrinken used to revert editions in Allan dos Santos and Nikolas Ferreira.
 * See minion 's use by youtuber Felipe Neto here: https://twitter.com/felipeneto/status/1585707311091183616
 * Ertrinken tries to avoid editions on articles-hagiographies, showing her intention to disperse any link between biographies of Catholic personalities recognized as holy, thus dispersing the biographies. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTHERE. Once blocked here for making legal threats, has made the same kind of abusive on Portuguese Wikipedia. Calling me a comunist militant will not work for you Ertrinken (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

He has just broken WP:3RR Ertrinken (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again and again Ertrinken (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ertrinken
Ertrinken is reverting the See also referring to the List of Catholic saints from Brazil, something which she and others also tried to do at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never been blocked here, unlike you, that have been blocked three times. You are repeating the same abusive pattern you had on Portuguese Wikipedia, this is unacceptable. Ertrinken (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trying to block a See also, as if it was a tremendous crime to link hagiographies in one article! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and that's a content dispute, which needs to be talked out at the appropriate talk page. It is in no wise a valid -- or sanctionable -- complaint at ANI.   Ravenswing      15:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They want to block me because of See also. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No one has mentioned "see also" in this discussion, we're talking about your cross-wiki disruptive editing. Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet she denounced me because I added a "See also" in 150 articles! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gondolabúrguer, kindly refrain from continuously repeating the same statement. Din  oz1  (chat?) 16:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Global ban necessary?
Gondolabúrguer has been disruptive editing on multiple wikis, and has multiple blocks on different wikis. Is it necessary for a global ban to be put in place? Din oz1  (chat?) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC

Support

I strongly support a global ban, however it would be nice if en.wiki admins could stop this kind of harassments on my talk page Ertrinken (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You are complaining about this: there is an ideological evidence, as written in your editions - your persistence at blocking an article about something that you dislike, "Catholic saints", See also -, and with a "sai minion" phrase, written twice.
 * Then you are reported and claims that the notice is a "harassment".
 * Actually, you have been harassing me and plays as a victim. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Read before commenting please. Repeating this again, no one is talking about your "see also" feud. Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The militant lady has reverted +30 editions because of See also. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We get it. Din  oz1  (chat?) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ertrinken Hi, please take a look on Global bans for more information. Please open a RFC on meta if you really want to enact a global ban. This user cannot be global banned now for they are not indeffed on two projects. -Lemonaka‎  19:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He will probably be undeff by pt wiki comunnity on the next days Ertrinken (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed means indefinitely blocked. However, Their block on ptwiki community is a short time block, so GB isn't applied to them. -Lemonaka‎  19:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I support a global ban. This has gone on long enough with no change in behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments


 * If you believe that is required, you'll want to request that (with diffs) on Meta. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume that may be the case. I'll see what other editors think of the proposal. Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me be clear: you want to block me because you do not want the List of Catholic saints from Brazil linked at the See also of every individual article... Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your block log shows much more than that. Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are cherry picking only to attain the prohibition of a See also (!!!!!).
 * It is the Wikipedia standard to permit and stimulate the inclusion of a See also, if the article is linked.
 * Again, to be clear: you want to block me because of a See also. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  No one is trying to block you for "see also". We are talking about your cross-wiki block log.  Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ertrinken is trying to block me for adding a See also at every article here: List of Catholic holy people from Brazil.
 * That means: she wants to prevent the list to be linked. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is only one of the reasons. There are lots of other reasons why people want you blocked. Take a look at your block log. Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I request this block due to this user disruptive behavior, for calling me a communist, for his harassment on my talk page and for breaking WP:3RR Ertrinken (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * + Cross-wiki abuse Din  oz1  (chat?) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "sai minion" https://twitter.com/felipeneto/status/1585707311091183616 Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trakking Look: a militant woman in Brazil, who edits with a Leftist phrase "sai minion", is trying to block me because she does not want a See also in every article of this page: List of Catholic holy people from Brazil
 * The same happened in Portuguese Wikipedia. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm writing an email for Wikimedia Stewards. Best regards! Ertrinken (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ertrinken, enough is enough, it's time to end this pointless discussion. Gondolabúrguer should be getting globally banned, which has been supported by most of the people in this discussion. Din  oz1  (chat?) 16:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked I have indeffed Gondolabúrguer until they explain (properly) what they are doing, which can be done through an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like there are legal threats being thrown about over at the talk page. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk page access (and email) removed. I think we're done here, unless anyone else has anything useful to add. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't wait for the parliamentary investigation about... checks notes ...social media links in a Wikipedia article.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 19:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Gorgon Slayer
It appears that embarked on a crusade to add "by Soviet government" to every number of kills in articles about Soviet snipers. Explanations just led to further reverts. In the recent talk thread he/she admitted a failure to distinguish between a sniper log book and government: "You can't separate a sniper from a government as they are part of the government". Another edit elsewhere introduced a factual inaccuracy by changing to the number not supported by existing sources. Has been blocked twice previously for editwarring. Brandmeistertalk  15:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * User blocked 1 month by Jayron32 for edit warring. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 month for WP:EW. I will note, Brandmeister, that you were getting rather close to the same; revert warring is not the proper way to handle these things. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that it appears that Gorgon Slayer has acknowledged the block without contesting it. (they are allowed to remove the notice from their user talk page, but I wanted to make it clear they were notified, in case anyone followed up with this and thought I hadn't left a notice). -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I think we're done here: . Indeffed now, TPA revoked.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I find those outbursts to be a lot more fun when I read them with an outrageous French accent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Especially when directed at silly English kuh-nig-its-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

IP making controversial edits related to the Greek Genocide
The IP has been making controversial, NPOV-violating edits related to the Greek Genocide. Their edits have been things like adding "alleged" before the link to the article, as well as surrounding a reference to the genocide with quotation marks. I have warned them to a level 4 warning, but they kept going.  interstate five   17:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with what I've done, Mr. "neutral"? According to you, holding the Turkish side is bad, but taking the Greek side is good. funny point of view. 176.220.235.29 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That only seems true if you label the consensus among non-Turkish and non-Greek historians as the "Greek side" rather than the neutral side. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

New user behavior at New Spain-related AFD
On behavior at Articles for deletion/Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal.

The sheer length of both the username and the improbable article title suggests that user might be trolling. And now they have moved on to personal attacks, I'm unimpressed by the lack of intellect you display and Wikipedia certainly has a lot of users that can't even comprehend what they read.

Can an admin please block this user? Walt Yoder (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You may read what I reply to, instead of quoting the responses without what they are answering to. If you go pass the line, I will reply in the same tone. If you want to held somebody accountable, look at those who I'm answering to (repeatedly) as well. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, no, it is not trolling. I'm open to change the name. So therefore, no, it was not made with any intention to troll. The name just describes what the article is about, and yes, that description is long. It can be improved, and I have said I'm open to do so if any good suggestions appear. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem is, it isn't actual topic. You slapped disparate things together under a broad umbrella and tried to pass it off as an article. The article will be deleted, there's no averting that now. Also, some advice - head to WP:RENAME and pick something sensible that people can actually address you with. IMO, the present choice is not in the spirit of "usernames must not be disruptive". Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly already addressed, no point on addressing. Read, if you feel like repeating the same as your peers would change the already sustained answer. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reported the username to UAA as I believe it is indeed disruptive, and certainly far from conducive to building an encyclopedia. Patient Zerotalk 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Block WP:CIR. This sadly only has one way of ending, given the responses. Zaathras (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * per NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Jabril Peppers BLP violation edit warring
We have a problem with an IP being dedicated since June 2022 to adding potentially defamatory text to Jabril Peppers. It has been a slow-motion edit war for almost a year, and a request for page protection was denied. The IPv6 is continually changing, so no way to communicate with the editor. I'd like to request someone block that range until communication can be established, and inform the editor that "WAGS unfiltered" is not a reliable source, and cannot be used to substantiate potentially defamatory information on a BLP. Regards, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 02:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I might also suggest that all the edits made by this range (which have already been reverted) be revdel'ed. The information seems to originate from a post by the purported former partner on a membership-only forum. It might even be true, but we have no way to substantiate it. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 02:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll
I wasn't sure where to ask about this, so I will try here. has added a link to the article Tom O'Carroll. The link goes to O'Carroll's personal blog. O'Carroll is a notorious pedophile who has been jailed multiple times and continues to advocate pedophilic relationships. Old conversations on Talk:Tom O'Carroll show that a different O'Carroll site was removed in the past.

Is this link is allowed on Wikipedia? MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an article content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page. Wikipedia is not censored, but there needs to be an encyclopedic purpose for an external link.  I'm not entirely clear on what link is problematic, but the only links I see seem to be used as citations. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indefffed the OP, an unusual new editor, for repeated personal attacks at Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination). The OP also failed to notify .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can call them personal attacks, but there also some pretty serious accusations that should be addressed. We have an editor adding in an encyclopedia article a blog by a convicted pedophile and relaying this person's view that an 11 year old is "hot". If what the OP wrote is true this is not the block that was needed here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to believe the wrong new editor might have been indeffed here…. Someone (maybe me, tomorrow when I have my laptop out) needs to take a longer, critical look at 22spears editing. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And their user page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what's wrong with their userpage? GIF of dancing anime-girl? Or quote with d-word? USS Col a! rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 06:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not so much "or" as "and". As in, the image and the quote and their choice of articles to edit. The combination is trolling at best. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * About that addition on Tom O'Carroll's article, nableezy, I added it primarily due to my notion surrounding the WP:UNCENSORED policy. I am aware that his comments regarding children were icky, but in my understanding they did merit being added in the article due to the fact that he was once reported on news outlets and social media accounts for making sexualized comments regarding a drag kid in his wordpress blog before it was banned. And if it is true that I added a link to his blog in the WP article, as the OP was saying, I'm almost sure that I did it to source the claims that O'Carroll's did indeed make those comments (this is a BLP after all, so sourcing in those articles is never too much, especially when it comes to potentially criminal/sexual harrassment accusations). 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 00:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Uncensored does not mean include the personal blog of a pedophile as though that were a usable source. The only source in the Drag kids section you added is O'Carroll's personal blog. We do not advertise a pedophile's views on how hot an eleven year old is sourced to his blog in the name of "NOTCENSORED". I find that justification incredibly weak to the point of questioning why it was even made. And there is no if about it, the internet famously being written in ink and Wikipedia having this nifty diff feature shows that you indeed did add that blog and that sentence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy is 100% right. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Our article was discovered by "pro-MAPs" within days of its creation, and that was followed by signs of canvassing at the AfD. According this academic book: several pro-pedophilia online groups want to make Wikipedia "more neutral" (in their favour), and to push traffic to their sites, which makes the O'Carroll edit look awful, as well as this edit by another SPA involved in the "MAP" article.
 * There are also these personal attacks , and this BLPvio through an MREL source (see the new section at the end, and contrast with comment below about BLPCRIME). Different diff from GhostofDanGurney. DFlhb (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I was on the wrong there, and the reverd by gnu was right. Again, I'm new on Wikipedia, nableezy, be patient with me. Looking up this incident right now, I found this and this souces from online outlets, both of which technically tell the truth but are generally unreliable. This is were I was coming from with those edits, but the decision to source it with a blog post was clearly wrong and was probably made when I wasn't aware of WP's policies regarding reliable sources. 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 01:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't WP:ABOUTSELF be reasonably applied in an "Opinions" section, even for someone we consider despicable? small jars 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but there is also the WP:BLPCRIME policy that should be considered, which says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". It is possible that in some jurisdictions what O'Carroll did could be considered sexual harrassment, so it's better to not include anything about that anyway. 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 01:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You think the reason not to include this is to protect O'Carrroll? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read point #2 of ABOUTSELF. Or the bolded part. DFlhb (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In WP:ABOUTSELF, after the bolded part, is "so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" see the last inclusion entry in WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions...". I presume calling ten-year-olds "hot" is 'contradicted by the prevailing view', otherwise we wouldn't set the legal age of consent higher than that. – . Raven .talk 05:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it against mainstream opinions that a known pedophile would have the personal opinion that a ten year old is "hot”? 22spears' additions to the section did not at all take O'Carrroll's claims at face value, but only made claims about claims. (And not claims I imagine that any pro-pedophile POV pusher would like to see kept on the article!) I can appreciate that the child protection element seriously complicates things, but still feel that 22spears was acting roughly in line with normal interpretation of policy in these edits, though maybe the juxtaposition of the two contradictory claims in O'Carrroll's blog post, without secondary coverage of this contradiction bordered on WP:SYNTH, and the whole section seems dubiously WP:DUE. small jars 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I parse the texts at the two WP pages I cited above, "the material" at O'Carroll's blog was making that "exceptional claim" (="contradicted by the prevailing view") that a ten-year-old was "hot"; thus should not have been linked. But I may have mis-read, mis-parsed, or mis-interpreted those texts, or perhaps missed seeing other text that would result in a different conclusion. This is one reason to seek consensus: more eyes looking into a topic miss fewer things. –  . Raven .talk 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP also applies to the child here - we need to consider their privacy and wellbeing in this situation as well. WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems particularly relevant - if a child is being creeped on by a 70 year old is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to continue to spread the creepy and inappropriate comments around, based on a citation to a blog run by the person who said the creepy stuff in the first place? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree that the content should not be in the article from this standpoint, as opposed to a WP:V-based argument, but which of the reasons we see as relevant has repercussions on our assessment of 22spears' overall conduct, which I would summarise as “insensitive” rather than “POV-pushing”. small jars 11:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support block of 22spears. I share MrPinkingShears's concerns about 22spears's editing in the paedophilia topic area. 22spears added a "drag kids" section sourced only to O'Carroll's personal blog; I have removed it. gnu 57 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether 22spears deserves to be blocked, the "comments" made by MPS are unacceptable. Here are some (without diffs):
 * "If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV."
 * "This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll..."
 * "22spears Your use of someone's first name in your edits gave me the impression that you either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them. That would explain why you refer to them by their first name, so familiarly. I didn't see you call Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll?"

---Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bbb23 that these comments were casting aspersions and in effect personal attacks, even if I do have misgivings about 22spears' edits The swarm of SPAs surrounding this topic area more generally (especially at Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) suggests that there may be some off-wiki activity (which maybe includes joe-jobbing). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you change the OP’s signature in your previous edit? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume Hemiauchenia was on autopilot or something, considering their editing history on Opilioacaridae. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a bizarre error. I have no idea it occurred and it was obviously unintentional. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s ok, it wasn’t my intent to accuse you of wrongdoing. Just couldn’t figure out what happened. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparenrly MrPinkingShears recently showed up here again as this IP, though his reply was erased. 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 01:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Spears22, regarding those diffs you just cited (attacks on Bbb23 calling for de-admining) -- those have been coming from new users and Virginia-based IPs (range: 2601:5c2:200:21bd::/64) for several months - well before any of the controversies here and before you (Spears22) or MrPinkingShears started editing. I don't think that's MrPinkingShears making those edits you just cited. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Depending on the nature of that blog, there may be Child protection considerations if the potential exists for an interaction between a young reader and the blog owner as a result of this link. I’d skip the link if in doubt. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A little creepy that 22spears’ edit refers to “Tom”, not “O’Carroll”. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for this comment. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, to be fair, it was brought up by MrPinkingShears earlier. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that’s a serious enough concern to be brought up again, an editor with a history that seems to imply they have been generally trying to make pedophilia/pedophiles appear more favorably referring to a famous pro-pedophilia activist by first name is quite concerning. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even creepier that it's not even "Tom", but "Thomas" in the edit summary. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I often refer to the people of the biographies I edit by their first name. You can navigate my edits relating to Allyn Walker (who I even referred as Allyson, which is their full (dead)name), and maybe even Tim Ballard if you want to confirm. I don't see how the fact that I refer to them by their first names means that I have a personal connection with them, at least in my mother language that is a common thing to do, even if the person we are talking about is a stranger (admins in this thread can see where I am from by looking at my IP's geolocation, but don't expose where I live). 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 03:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Using a first name like that is not our style on the English Wikipedia. Also, admins can't see your IP address; only check-users can (for sock puppetry) and they have to show justification. I suppose IP records may be accessible for legal proceedings but that's at the level of the Wikipedia Foundation, not Wikipedia editors. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support block The creepy userpage. The creation of "minor-attracted person" over a redirect to Wiktionary and Stigma of pedophilia. The other points raised here by A. B. and Genericusername57 are just too many dots for me. The icing on the cake here for me is that their first edit (made less than two months ago) included BLP-violating wording about the founder of an anti-pedophilia group. This "unusual new editor" does not seem capable of editing from a NPOV in this topic area (which I would believe falls under the GENSEX CTOP). &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked out the blog post that started this argument. The content certainly fits within our WP:NOTCENSORED policy. However, per Child protection, I am concerned about the opportunity for interaction between an underaged reader and one of the many people commenting on the blog post (there are 175 comments). I don't think it's worth the risk to underage readers. Besides, that link is the reference for a comment by O'Carroll that's of minor import - just how important is it that we include his opinion of child drag performer Desmond is Amazing? I say delete the Desmond is Amazing opinion and the blog link together. Dilemma resolved. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarifying since there are discussions on two different editors going on in here, that this is support of a block for 22spears. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support block of 22spears per my reply above, and per my AfD arguments that Minor attracted person is a POV fork and unacceptably normalizes pedophilia (per Zaathras is right). DFlhb (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Attraction to minors includes more than just pedophilia, so Minor-attracted person cannot possibly be a POV fork of Pedophilia. Casdmo (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the main counterargument to POVFORK, yet it's a technicality.
 * This paper, highly-cited (380 citations), says For the sake of simplicity and convention, we refer to both hebephilic and pedophilic men as “pedophilic.” That's common even in scholarship. When papers treat them as interchangeable, it's not vandalism to do so. DFlhb (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case "common" conflicts with "precision", an event also found in "Hindu terrorism" vs "Hindutva terrorism", "Islamic terrorism" vs "Islamist terrorism", "Christian terrorism" vs "Christian nationalist terrorism", etc. At a certain point, I think precision should win, otherwise we're helping perpetuate mistakes because they're "common" mistakes. – . Raven .talk 05:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I deny the implicit premise that the topic of a POV-fork must be precisely coterminous with the topic of the forked article. The topic minor-attracted person might indeed be a strict superset of the topic pedophilia (though I do not grant this), yet nonetheless the former may still be a POV-fork of the latter. WP:POVFORK itself gives an example of a POV-fork that does not cover the precise topic area of any existing article. Shells-shells (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, minor-attracted person is a subset of the Chronophilia subject (because it emcompasses some chronophilias, such as pedophilia and hebephilia, but not others such as mesophilia and gerontophilia). The reason why I created that page was not for it to be a POV-fork, it was because of the of the recent controversies relating to the usage of this term by public figures and organizations (Project Horizon, Mermaids, etc; you can read about them in the MAP article, if it's still there). Since that term was covered by RS, I believed it would be fine to create a separate article just to address it. I had actually made some edits on the Chronophilia page just to address this term, but it felt a little off-topic, which motivated me to start a draft of an article dedicated just to that word in my userspace, which I then published in the mainspace in the beggining of this month. That article was sort of a WP:SPLIT from the Chronophilia and Allyn Walker ones. 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear that @DFlhb has had a personal beef with me for days ever since I made a revert of his edit in the MAP article (I called it a "POV-push", and 2 minutes later he showed up to oppose me in the AfD and then called me uncivil in the talk page), so therefore any claim that he makes about me or I make about him is not coming from an unbiased party. About that edit, DFlhb, I wasn't trying to offend you, I was just being blunt. I understand that it feels shitty when someone dismisses your contribution as bad, especially in a revert, but calling for me to be blocked two days after that happened is in a level of bitterness that I have never had against anyone on WP. Actually, I almost invited you to discuss on the talk page of that article about the edit that you had made, but I felt like I didn't have to because I thought you would already knew how WP:Dispute resolutions usually work on WP. You're not the first person I disagreed with in the article, I have also called Sedan's edit SYNTH in the past and we were able to discuss the issue civilly in the talk page just fine. 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The user is now blocked, but for the record, I started typing my AfD reply before that revert ever happened; it had no impact on my vote. DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose block of 22spears. The only misstep 22spears has made was the aforementioned citation of O'Carroll.  22spears has admitted fault (see above) regarding the citation.  The other stated reasons for supporting a block of 22spears pertain to personal discomfort (such as one editor's use of the word creepy above), which is too subjective to warrant a block. Casdmo (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you directly reference my support of a block, I will clarify that my support comes from the totality of reasons I stated, including their first version of Predator Poachers containing BLP-violating material about the founders political views, not just their interpretation of WP:UPYES to include a particular lyric placed beside a particular image. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose MrPinkingShears block - I disagree with indefinitely blocking MrPinkingShears. His comments at Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) crossed a line but nobody really warned him of our policies before dropping an indefinite block. I suggest trimming the block. I will also note that he has made some good comments about content. He just needs to understand we argue over content not other editors' intentions. I think a 24-hour block would serve that purpose just as well. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What "line" did MPS cross? From what I just read, the only aspersion he cast was to accuse 22spears of pushing a pro-pedophilia POV.  That's pretty harsh, sure, but a number of editors in this thread have made the exact same accusation.   Ravenswing      08:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. You're never going to find a smoking gun on this kind of thing, but there really isn't any good-faith justification for the pattern of edits 22spears has made. A well-meaning neutral party with an interest in paraphilias might fall into some of the mistakes observed at the MAP article, but that wouldn't explain the other edits discussed here, which are much more decidedly "pedophile culture war"-y, nor would it explain the insistence on avoiding the word "pedophile". I would indef as NOTHERE, but I happen to have created the original redirect, which isn't actually involvement in this dispute but I suppose could be taken that way, so I'll just leave this as a strong suggestion that some other admin do that. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the word "pedophile" in the MAP article because reliable sources that cover this term did not do so. They all say pedophilia is a subset of the minor-attracted person umbrella. You can read them yourself. 90% of what I did in that article was put "minor-attracted person" on google and google scholar and transcribe what reliable sources said about the topic to the article. Just to illustrate it, this generally reliable source states that "The concept of Minor-Attracted Persons (MAPs), which is perceived by some as part of the attempt to normalize pedophilia, is an umbrella term used by organizations such as B4U-ACT or The Global Prevention Project, an organization that addresses “risky sexual thoughts, fantasies, and non-contact problematic sexual behavior in adult men and women,” in order to prevent child sexual abuse, as well as some researchers, to define a variety of people attracted to minors. These include nepiophiles (attracted to babies and toddlers), pedophiles (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephiles (attracted to pubescent children and early adolescents), and ephebophiles (attracted to late adolescents)." All other RS's that you find on Google will tell you the same thing. 🔥 <span style="color:white; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px black; background-image: linear-gradient(to right, red, yellow); border: 2px solid #b39d74; font-weight: bold; padding: 0 0.3em 0 0.3em">22spears 🔥 06:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef 22Spears and Unblock MrPinkingShears but give a final warning. Per GhostofDan Gurney, A.B. and Tamzin. The current situation - with the one account blocked and the other not - is really disturbing. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. I realize that these discussions are typically left open for 24 hours, but frankly with this kind of concern, I think we should err on the side of caution. I have deliberately not closed or hatted this discussion; if consensus turns against this block then so be it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I came to the same conclusion as PMC and Tamzin before seeing this thread, but PMC beat me to the block. It's blinding obvious what 22spears is up to here and I'm astonished that 's response was to block for pointing that out. Anyway, I've started Articles for deletion/Stigma of pedophilia and I think we need eyes on the rest of 22spears' remaining creations: Predator Poachers, Allyn Walker, primary prevention of child sexual abuse and User:22spears/Todd Nickerson. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced that Allyn Walker passes WP:GNG and is a notable topic. The article doesn't seem to have any major POV issues as far as I can tell. No strong opinions on the others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree with a close review of all articles this user has created or significantly contributed to. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Good block of 22spears, but I add my voice to those calling for MrPinkingShears to be unblocked. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block. Enough said. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a Good block (maybe it should be a CBAN). But what abour MrPinkingSheers who got blocked for pointing it out? DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good block, and the block of MrPinkingShears was a bad one. I'm seeing a consensus forming for unblocking the latter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverse block on MrPinkingShears: Having just looked over the discussion in question, unless there are revdel'd comments I couldn't see, MrPinkingShears was indeffed for accusing 22spears of nothing more than several other editors have done in endorsing his block. Seriously? If all the personal attack MPS issued was "this guy is pushing a pro-pedophilia POV," there ought to be multiple indefs handed out to participants in this discussion.   Ravenswing      08:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin: this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV -blocked for aspersions!

Admin: I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. - not blocked for aspersions!

I'd put a laughing emoji here usually, except this isn't really very funny...  Tewdar  09:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverse block of MrPinkingShears – WP:AGF? Those are comments that could certainly be good faith, and they're not clear personal attacks. A warning is probably justified here, as the questions about knowing the pedophile personally are over the line, but a block is excessive.


 * As for 22spears' block, I'm neutral on it. I haven't done a deep dive into their contributions, but they did seem to be POV-pushing, and they were a single-purpose account over 1100 edits in 2 months – still, I'm not sure this is necessarily grounds for a block over a TBAN, when they have expressed a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future. However, I might be taking AGF too far here, and I'm certainly not a regular around here, so I'm not too familiar with the ropes of this area. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  09:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:CHILDPRO re blocking the 22spears account as a matter of policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The MAP AFD is chock full of SPAs that need some attention. Courcelles (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say WP:CHILDPRO justifies MrPinkingShears' ban more so than 22spears'. The idea of 22spears supposedly advocating anything is clearly subjective, but MrPinkingShears without a doubt did publish allegations against 22spears on-site rather than via email as the policy requires. --Pokelova (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well ... the rabbit hole THAT falls into is that lacking a blatant statement such as "I'm a proud pedo!" from an editor or a smoking gun link with a phrase like "Check this out!" to a NAMBLA webpage, an admin could indef an editor for violating CHILDPRO, but be in violation themselves for saying why.   Ravenswing     15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ravenswing The policy doesn't even seem to say what Pokelova claims it does. The policy states that . Treating it in exactly the same way as any other allegation would surely include the use of WP:AE, WP:ANI, administrator talk pages etc? The bit about using email seems to be related to identifying people as paedophiles, which seems reasonable given the Libel/Outing concerns. Asking if 22spears knew Tom O'Carroll was toeing the line, but they don't seem to have actually made accusations of anything other than POV pushing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the ping. I don't believe the 22spears block is subjective. I haven't reviewed MrPinkingShears' block, sorry. Plenty of others have in this thread, so I'm confident it's getting appropriate attention. -- 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs)
 * a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future Without comment on anything else about the justification for either block, an apparent SPA with a history of POV-pushing on paedophilia-related topics wanting to edit on Ancient Greek history is not necessarily reassuring. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, pederasty in ancient Greece and related topics are a known ideological battleground for people with an axe to grind related to paedophilia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like 86Sedan was just banned too as an AE action, which I support. See the edits apparently whitewashing an org that argues that if a child is "willing", no harm is caused. This edit summary is misleading: "minimize harm" is not an opinion but straight from the cited source, and there's no "controversy" about what the clinical data say, per the sources we cite. See also the insertion the self-description of a controversial group (a group which refuses to take sides pro/contra molestation). And just for fun, peep this other misleading edit summary. DFlhb (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked I have accepted MrPinkingShears' unblock request as I see multiple admins calling for it, and no objections. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blocks of 22spears and 86sedan. Definite POV pushing going here that could have severely damaged Wikipedia. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support all current blocks (i.e. not MPS). Ugh.  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can probably close this section of the thread, as it seems all necessary action has been taken, unless there's anything else. <b style="border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#008080;color:white;">‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"> 00:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support current state of affairs (22spears and 86sedan blocked), PinkingShears unblocked. Obviously matters have already been set aright here, but I thought I would provide a little bit of extra context underlying the disturbing activities here and the fact that they go back a bit. I've previously (to my great distaste) become familiar with the situation at the O'Carrol article in the past: I can't recall if the first occasion was via RfC or in my capacity as a pending changes reviewer, but I do recall the circumstances were distressingly similar to those here: a small cadre of abuse apologists pursuing attempts to whitwash the article, legitimize O'Carrol's propensities as just a sort of sexual identity, and shift the article more towards discussing his views rather than independent RS coverage of his crimes and reputation in mainstream sources, all in pretty blatant violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT.
 * Now, I didn't face any ill-advised block or other blowback for my efforts to draw attention to this situation, but as I recall there was significant frustration of another sort in that I was met with mostly silence as I attempted to send up a flag at several different spaces. I will, reluctantly, poke through the new edits by these two new blocked users to see if the pattern of their edits rings any bells of familiarity and see if there is anything practical I can add to hopefully creating a bullwark against this community of O'Carrol boosters, but I really do think the fact that this situation has played out so similarly multiple times now suggests that we could be doing more to lock down that particular article and streamline and facilitate reports on violations of this nature.  In the meantime, I wonder if it doesn't make more sense to advise anyone who runs into similar behaviour in this or other articles on such predators to simply take the matter directly to the Trust and Safety team. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 23:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for connections to past O'Carroll supporters, do note that I've blocked as a likely sock of one such user,  (as well as per CHILDPROTECT).  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks : I appreciate the heads-up! <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 00:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I've looked through the recent edit history of the O'Carrol article and some of the contributions of the recently blocked pair of SPAs, and reviewed my filing at SPI for the then-most-recent socks of the Researcher1000 sockmaster--I eventually utilized SPI to get some administrative action because it was taking too long to get blocks implemented on WP:CHILDPROTECT criteria alone; thankfully the socking case was strong, even without technical evidence.  I would be very surprised indeed if this is not the same user or set of users--it has been unclear from the start the number of bad actors, but I think it is just one or two.


 * I actually suspected O'Carroll himself as the sockmaster at the time, as an account using his name was one of the earliest and most problematic in the cluster, and the messaging of later accounts really followed the same blueprint of his arguments about how he was a misunderstood intellectual being "defamed" and that his assaults of children were being mischaracterized, because, according to his reasoning, "child rape" was an unfair label, in that we could not prove that the children did not consent to and enjoy sex with him...  Yeah, dealing with this situation the last time around was easily the single least pleasant experience I've had on the project.  Anyway,, in blocking the then-active sock (belated note of appreciation for that, Berean) noted that they did not believe the other accounts were connected to the nominal O'Carroll account, but they declined to share the factors leading to that conclusion for purpose of WP:BEANS: I meant to follow up on more discrete channels, but I guess I was just happy enough for it to be done for the moment and let good enough lay, and I never did look deeper.


 * Anyway, the tone and particulars of this new pair are really close behavioural matches for the older sock clusters.  I think that the IP that requested a removal of reference to O'Carroll's abuse convictions was probably related as well.   complied with that request, but on the goodfaith basis that it was not supported by the inline citations attached to that sentence, based on how the IP presented the facts.   Thing is, I'm pretty certain that either those sources or others in the article support that description of the charges, because I believe (and I'll have to double check this later, but I'm fairly certain) the "conspiring to corrupt public morals" charge directly related to his sexual abuse of an extremely young boy (this was in the early 80s, so...).  That or there were other charges represented in other sources; this was four years ago and not exactly a set of facts one's mind wants to dwell on, so the sources will have to be re-consulted.  But my impulse is that the language removed should probably be restored, and I don't think it would require additional sourcing, but again, will have to confirm that.


 * Ok, that's all I have the time/energy/mental stamina for now, folks: I was already exhausted from the week and nearly a couple of straight days up, and stumbling towards well overdue sleep before I noticed that this ugly situation had resurge. And revisiting it hasn't exactly been a refreshing tonic. I'll try to tease out some additional details this weekend, but the long and the short of it is that I do think this is the same group of abuse-apologist activists; it is a very good thing that  caught and moved to arrest their activities this time around; the article should probably be semi- or pending changes-protected indefinitely this time; and we need a more dedicated methodology for getting robust attention to WP:CHILDPROTECT violations more immediately.  As for the rest, it will have to wait until my brain is rebooted.  Thanks to everyone who acted to stop this malignancy this time, once it became clear what was going on. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't really qualify for protection at this stage: it's fairly low-traffic (around 20 edits this year) with no current vandalism, edit-warring, disruption or vigorous content disputes. It's a controversial topic to be sure, but semi-protection or ECP for fear of future negative edits seems unnecessarily pre-emptive. It also wouldn't have prevented the addition of the O'Carroll blog link back in March, as the editor who added it was extended-confirmed.


 * Other than that, appreciate the sentiment behind your post (and hope you get some sleep). -- Euryalus (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to vigorously disagree with that logic here: WP:CHILDPROTECT violations are not your garden variety POV pushing by any stretch of the imagination--the steps justified in keeping that content out of an article where a group of pro-child sexual exploitation advocates have made a longterm effort to get them in are much more substantial, especially in light of the fact that involvement from legitimate editors in that space is extremely limited--and understandably so, as the subject matter doesn't inspire one to keep coming back to check on it, with the exception of making sure these activities are not occurring, and even those eyes will always eventually fall off.


 * Add in the fact that the subject is a pariah, with no real notability outside his crimes and advocacy in the 70s and 80s (and thus that there should be little need to adjust the article much, absent new crimes) and the math I feel militates very, very strongly for protection. Actually, you could ignore everything I just said after "WP:CHILDPROTECT violations" and it still would do. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 18:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the exact scenario in which pending changes is normally used? Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  05:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles created by 22spears

 * Allyn Walker
 * Primary prevention of child sexual abuse
 * User:22spears/templatedue
 * User:22spears/Todd Nickerson

given the inappropriateness of the articles already at afd, the rest of this person's creations require scrutiny. ValarianB (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Call it IAR if you like, but I'm deleting the userspace pages on that list. Courcelles (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Im currently in the process of making some bold edits to "Primary prevention of child sexual abuse", it seems like the purpose it was created for was to push the idea that arresting child abusers is bad, but it also seems notable outside of that so im not going to AFD (right now) Googleguy007 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You might be wasting your time, . That page starts "The primary prevention of sexual abuse consists of a set of measures taken to prevent child sexual abuse before it happens". Given that prevention of something after it happens is relatively unusual, and removing some other clutter, that sentence reduces to "The prevention of [child] sexual abuse is the prevention of child sexual abuse". That's not a promising definition of a topic. I'd consider redirecting it Sexual violence or some better target, but AfD looks like a good option too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s a good point, thinking about it a little more it doesn’t really have a purpose outside of describing punishing child sexual abusers as somehow worse than attempting to get them help. I do think it ~could~ make a decent article someday but that would have to be after a full rewrite. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I redirected it to Child sexual abuse as a quick fix. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would parse that as "preventing even the *first* time someone abuses a child, rather than waiting until then to try preventing *subsequent* times" – the latter being admittedly how the judicial system (imprisonment, parole, abuser-registry) works, as actual criminal acts are what triggers it — merely *potential* criminals don't enter that system. But then all those "first victims" don't get protected. Something that prevents the *first* abuse thus protects those children, yet doesn't require imprisonment etc., works also to the benefit of the pedophiles, true... but in this case, NOT benefitting the pedophiles requires NOT protecting their "first victims". If I misunderstand that, please explain in what way. – . Raven .talk 02:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Allyn Walker is based heavily upon post-2013 Newsweek and other unreliable sources. At best, it needs radical stubbification. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Operation Underground Railroad was also substantially edited by 22spears, and needs scrutiny. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cut this one back. The talk page has solid, experienced editors so I think it's in good hands. DFlhb (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cut Allyn Walker back to a point where the sourcing is respectable, at least. I'm somewhat concerned that we have a WP:BLP1E situation; an academic wouldn't likely be notable for a single book, and the controversy seems to have made a splash and then receded as people found the next thing to be angry at. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Having worked on the article and having thought about the sourcing further. I agree there is a convincing argument that this is a WP:BLP1E. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If there hadn't been a controversy, we'd have an academic with a single book to their credit, and the standard course of action would be to refactor the article into a page about the book. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to AfD, see Articles for deletion/Allyn Walker. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Anyone speak Portuguese? 22spears was quite busy on ptwiki back in April, and focused on similar subjects. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wish I did. I only speak like 3 words Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly familiar with the subject matter, so I'm a poor judge of fringe-pushing here, but I would draw to people's attention the creation of an article for Danilo Baltieri that makes various claims about medical/scholarly topics but is cited solely to journalistic sources, the addition of  similarly-cited claims attributed to Baltieri on the pt.wiki page for pedophilia, the liberal application of citation-needed tags at the same . I'm going to notify their AN-equivalent of this discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The content added or removed by the account on ptwiki significantly modified the structure of a sensitive article, a fact that already justifies the reversal of edits. In short, the feeling I get is the same as Rosguill. He removed information referenced by academic sources or entities/institutions by content referenced by journalistic interviews.
 * This subject is quite controversial on ptwiki. In the past, we even had suspicions of accounts practicing apology for pedophilia. I'm not an expert. But that article cannot be left unprotected. <span style="color:#000000;font-family:Poor Richard, Nella Sue;">Edmond Dantès  d'un message? 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Conde Edmon Dantès, for taking action here. Also pinging, an enwiki admin who's active on ptwiki, just for a second set of eyes there. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Making a note that I've seen the ping and will take a look later today, thanks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Also regarding 86sedan
Two things that we should consider regarding the now-blocked 86sedan:

1. I just found out that the user was blocked on Wiktionary in September 2021 with the reason "Disruptive edits: advocating illegal activities". Going forward, this can be a reminder to myself and others to check cross-wiki permissions (e.g. ). But also: shouldn't the user have been blocked here as well? Is it policy when someone is blocked for such a reason? If not, perhaps it should be?

2. claims to be a WP:SOCKLEGIT in the first sentence of their userpage. Personally, I've doubted this, and consider it to be an excuse to explain why they were familiar with Wikipedia and that the original was in fact a blocked account from years past. But given this admission, should we not run a CheckUser on the account to see who, if anyone, the master is, and block them as well? There is off-wiki evidence that they have made contributions on certain non-WMF sites that are extremely concerning, and that's all I'll say for now in case this is considered aspersions or something. If an admin prompts me to reply more here or to send an email I am happy to oblige.

Crossroads -talk- 19:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen a claim off-wiki (which might or might not be the same one) that connects 86sedan with another user account at a pedophilia-related site, but I didn't see any actual evidence to support the connection (other than the other identity mentioned the 86sedan Wiktionary block). Also, looking at all of 86sedan's Wiktionary contributions, I don't actually see any advocacy of any illegal act (though I guess something might have been deleted). I am disturbed by 86sedan's contributions here, but we need to be careful not to just believe allegations made against them without carefully checking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we did see the same off-wiki discussion, but personally I found the evidence compelling, and it also fits in with the user's repeated whitewashing regarding that very site, seen in the history here: Crossroads -talk- 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, it sounds like we saw the same thing. And I hadn't checked those edits regarding that site, which does indeed make the connection seem more persuasive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's more at the same source now, though you may well have already seen it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On point 2, I think a CheckUser check might be warranted here. I think the SOCKLEGIT declaration on 86sedan's userpage satisfies NOTFISHING, as there is a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry if the other known account(s) are not blocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I, too, find the LEGITSOCK claims to be dubious and enough on their own to warrant a CU. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree with you there, seems like a CU check should be done considering the touchy subject and the generally dubious claims. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

CU was already run; results are but indicate someone who is trying to cover their tracks. I actually doubt the account being someone’s actual alt; I believe that’s a cover for trolling. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments to Tamzin above for discussion and links indicating the sock master and farm most likely at play here, which may or may not include O'Carroll himself, but which do, with a high degree of certainty, involve members of some profoundly hideous community that attempts to lionize him and spread his philosophy of re-contextualizing sexual abuse as a healthy alternative sexuality and lifestyle. These activists have been dealt with here before, but I never did know from what dark corner of the internet they pustuled. I gather some here have now deduced some of those details, and we can put the old violations together with new information and maybe be a little better prepared for them next time.  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 04:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also Qirtaiba (Jeremy Malcolm) and R alvarez02
Both dormant account (Jeremy Malcolm of the California-based "charity" Prostasia) and SPA  also indeffed for advocacy in violation of the Child protection policy. Note: if anyone takes issue with these blocks, please post about it to my talk page as I might not be able to see pings for a few days. Thanks. El_C 05:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It might be worth revdelling the AfD's page from revisions 1155011353 to 1155094689, as it includes the same link that was on Qirtaiba's user page as added by . Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 16:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Replied @User talk:El_C (diff). El_C 11:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Bbb23) Related to this block, and only this block
To start, let me make it clear that I know you believed you were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. But I'm still concerned that your action is going to have a chilling effect on anyone who wishes to raise similar concerns in the future. So I'd appreciate if you answered a few questions:


 * 1) I can find no public apology directed towards MrPinkingShears. Have you done so, privately?
 * 2) It was 13 minutes from MrPinkingShears's report to your block. To the best of your memory, how much of that time did you spend reviewing 22spears' edits, as opposed to MrPinkingShears' edits?
 * 3) Why did you decide to block, instead of warn, or even offer advice, e.g. direct them to ArbCom?
 * 4) Most importantly, what steps will you take in future, if a similar situation comes up? How will you ensure that users are not scared away from reporting potentially harmful editors, out of fear of a block?

Again, I know you meant well, and simply misjudged the situation. But I think a full reckoning will help you, and others, from making similar mistakes in the future. Thank you for your time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I explained why I blocked right after, including quotes of the personal attacks by MPS, a brand new user. I thought the attacks were egregious and merited an indefinite block. In hindsight, perhaps I should have focused more on 22spears, but although personal attacks may be understandable, that does not make them acceptable. The user's block was overturned fairly quickly. Given all the positive comments by others about MPS's conduct, I doubt that the block had any kind of "chilling effect"; nor do I imagine any future new user will even know about it. This reponse may not be fully satisfactory to you, but it's all I have to say about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One isolated bad block won't create a chilling effect. But a pattern of ill-thought-out BOOMERANG-ish behavior will lead people to mind their own business and not speak up. That's not all on you, of course; ANI would still be a toxic stew without your presence. But I think it would go a long way if you just straight out admitted that you were wrong this one time. That sort of apology can't be forced, of course. I still urge you to reflect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your position is contradictory. On the one hand, you're saying no harm done because the community acted swiftly to reverse you. On the other hand, you don't agree that you were wrong in the first place. The community can't possibly review every block you make; it has to trust that you're exercising good judgement. Here, during a very public discussion with many witnesses, you didn't exercise good judgement, and you're declining to engage. Do you see the problem, and will you reconsider? Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 made a reasonable action in the moment, that upon the presentation of further evidence, turned out to be not the correct decision, and it was undone. That further evidence later came out doesn't mean the incorrect decision was made in the moment.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Bbb23) Other related matters

 * This isn't the first time this has happened; they are not a bad admin but they can be quick on the admin tools at times... I hope they will take your suggestions to heart. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only once ever reversed blocks over the blocking admin's objection, and it was Bbb23's blocks of and  because he'd mistaken a group of fans editing about a YouTuber for a sock farm. The former is maybe barely justifiable if one assumes Bbb somehow didn't know that fans of online content creators frequently work together on (often very low-quality) drafts. The latter editor, though, had literally only fixed the formatting of a number on the draft for said YouTuber's associated publicity stunt. Every admin who blocks a lot will get it wrong from time to time (I know I have), but what stood out to me is that Bbb23 explicitly objected to unblocking either, without presenting any evidence of actual policy violation. That wasn't the first time he's done something like this; this won't be the last. He blocks first, asks questions never, and generally seems indignant that his decisions could even be called into question. Bad blocks are only part of a long-term pattern of assumptions of bad faith and hasty actions, which among other things has led to his loss of the CU tool for out-of-process checks, an adverse ArbCom finding of fact for prematurely closing a discussion of another admin's misuse of rollback, and an adverse XRV close for his own misuse of rollback. At a certain point something needs to be done.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've read this like 3-4 times, and the only word that comes to mind is "catty". Bbb23 is not on trial here, your dredging up piles of 3-4 year-old stuff completely unrelated to the simple question posed (which per WP:ADMINACCT, they answered) is conduct unbecoming. Should we start a sub-section about your missteps since becoming an admin, Tamzin? Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tamzin's not the admin who blocked a user shortly after that user reported pedo-advocacy, and if it's part of a pattern of short-sighted use of tools, I don't think it's unbecoming to bring the pattern up. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd like more evidence of a pattern, Zaathras: Bbb23's insistence that "collaborating" with other editors is a problem, seen in the Smallcolt/Xvixvi case, is not a one-time thing, nor something that he's desisted from. In July 2021, he blocked and  as sox for working together on content; he was reversed, refusing to ackowledge any error. Last month, he blocked  and  for, as best I can tell, collaborating on a userspace draft. He did not justify the latter blocks in response to inquiry, and both blocks were reversed per AN/I. Want more hasty blocks?, blocked for drafting a table in their sandbox. This is a persistent problem of poor judgment in use of the blocking tool, and failing to adequately respond to colleagues when queried about these poor blocks.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that this diff from January 2023 re: the TomatoBhutan block also shows a refusal to admit they were wrong. "I do not oppose giving the user a second chance." A second chance??? When all they were doing was making tables for baseball and professional wrestling articles? That lost them a "first chance"? is this really "quite good judgement"? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I share some of Tamzin's concerns regarding Bbb23's approach to blocks, this specific example seems frivolous: off-handedly referring to unblocking someone as "giving a second chance" seems like a reasonable, colloquial expression that does not imply a lack of accountability or insistence on always being right. signed,Rosguill talk 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess I just fail to see how anyone could interpret TomatoBhutan's editing as WP:NOTHERE. I very much appreciate your input here. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your close as "Asked and answered". While Bbb may have responded to SoY's question, there is an ongoing discussion here about whether Bbb23's use of the block tool has been in keeping with WP:ADMIN, which—ironically per the ArbCom finding that faulted Bbb23 in GiantSnowman—should not be closed prematurely. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you think that Bbb23's actions deserve sanctioning, discussing them here will do absolutely nothing except to smear them. If you're that put out by it, and think it serious enough to deserve an ANI thread, I suggest you open an arbitration request and ask for a desysop and see how far that gets you.  If you're not willing to do that, the matter should be dropped.  A mistake was made, and corrected almost immediately by others -- we don't force people to make apologies, nor should we drag them in the mud when we disagree with them, as you appear to want to do.I don't plan to say anything more about this, and if you take my advice, you won't either, because your comments are beginning to reflect quite badly on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Accountability shouldn't require threatening people with sanctions. Mackensen (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Accountability for admins, if one feels they have done wrong, does not and can not come via an ANI thread of random assertions, is what I believe BMK's point to be. Jesus, what a dumpster fire the un-hatting of this tangent is becoming. Zaathras (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The section should not have been uncollapsed, especially by one of the participants. (I had not commented here at the time of my collapsing it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tamzin's tattle-tale behavior against another admin I'm sorry, but what a load of absolute nonsense. By the rest of the logic in this sentence, no-one can make valid complaints against an admin who is demonstrating a pattern of block first, questions and justifications never. It's also particularly perverse to call this "tattle-tale behavior", where if Tamzin hadn't posted links to questionable blocks, or the past ArbCom finding of fault against bbb23, it would have left them open to accusations of casting unsupported aspersions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note, because there seems to have been an edit conflict or a change that the reply tool didn't otherwise pick up, at the time I made the above reply the comment I was replying to looked . Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken sensibly removed that part of his comment; it reflected poorly on him and I doubt Bbb23 would want to be associated with that kind of defense. Let's all focus on the matter at hand. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My views here are my own, I am not a representative of Bbb23.I note that Tamzin's poor judgment in uncollapsing this thread has allowed all sorts of random complaints to be posted. I wonder if other admins would be comfortable in having such an unfocused open-season thread opened about their behavior? Such a potpourri of grudges can only be detrimental to any admin's willingness to perform their duties and make what might be unpopular decisions which are necessary to protect the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an administrator yes, I feel comfortable being accountable for my conduct. Old hands know that when I was more active, especially as a checkuser, I didn't shy away from such discussions, regardless of who asked. Sometimes I got short with people, but I think I usually apologized afterwards. That's the price of holding and exercising the tools. Mackensen (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been on the receiving end of a thread like this. It wasn't fun, but I never once thought it was improper. I think (or hope at least) that answers like mine and Mackensen's are what you're going to get from any admin. No one should ever be afraid to hold an admin accountable. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this. Tamzin's points are legitimate concerns and this is a place to discuss them. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with her concerns as well; I just am a bit biased as I butt heads with Bbb23 around 5 years ago, although I don't remember what it was about. I'm really hoping that they will take our concerns to heart and be less "quick on the draw". -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 should be sent to ArbCom. He definitely deserves to be desysopped. 84.9.224.117 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And who are you when you're not hiding behind an IP? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you being so defensive? I don't agree with the IP but people are allowed to share their pseudoanonymous opinions. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which in this context is possibly an editor who received a block from the said sysop. IPs don't just appear out of nowhere to staunchly advocate desysoping someone. –Vipz (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It could also be an active user who simply doesn't want their criticism of Bbb23 to be tied to their account. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which would be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry as avoiding scrutiny. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also the broader context that sockpuppets have been hounding Bbb23 (in particular at ANI, I believe) for some time now, popping up all the time with names like "Bbb23 is the worst" or much more offensive equivalents. While I don't think this IP needs to be blocked at this time, I'm not inclined to AGF much for IPs with no editing history making belligerent comments about Bbb23. signed,Rosguill talk 21:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. that explains why Beyond my Ken is being defensive. I wasn't aware of this history. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you think you've found the answer, but in fact I wasn't aware that Bbb23 was under attack from IPs socks any more than is usual for an admin who is diligent about policing the project.No, I was motivated not by IPs attacking Bbb23, nor by Suffusion of Yellow's questions (although I thought that asking them in public before approaching Bbb23 privately was bad form), but by Tamzin's poor judgment in jumping on Bbb23 with a completely non-relevant post about past grievances. (The post about which Zaathras said "I've read this like 3-4 times, and the only word that comes to mind is "catty".")No, hijacking this thread to attack a fellow admin instead of taking up their concerns with Bbb23 directly, or if they'd already done that, making a separate report with evidence by way of diffs, they threw open the door to anyone who Bbb23 ever blocked or sanctioned to vent against them in an open-ended venue with no stated purpose. That's what annoyed me and got my blood up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello to folks at Wikipediocracy. I don't read your site, so feel free to speculate that I'm Bbb23's marionette all you want, it only shows, I guess, the level of discourse and analysis over there, since it's doubtful that anyone actually familiar with my history could possibly harbor the suspicion that I am anybody's tool. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a relevant discussion, and I do not see how it is hijacking. The initial thread resulted in a not-very-great action from Bbb23, and a subsection was created to discuss it...this seems pretty standard. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I believe you have completely missed my point. So it goes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There are many steps in accountability for admins before going to ArbCom for a desysop. For better or for worse, this is the noticeboard where problematic conduct behaviours are discussed, and by doing it here instead of jumping straight for the big red de-sysop button it gives Bbb23 the opportunity to reflect upon what they are doing wrong, and how they can do better. That is infinitely more valuable than a straight jump-to-desysop, as if Bbb23 does reflect upon this and change how they approach blocks, it allows us to retain an experienced admin whom is now living up to the standards expected by the community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 answered the questions put to them more than adequately, but it seems that some people aren't satisfied and want sackcloth and ashes and self-flagellation. They demand a pound of flesh for a minor mistake quickly corrected.  I find that sad, inappropriate and counter-productive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would settle for Bbb23 acknowledging that they had, in fact, made a mistake, and undertaking to learn from the experience. I don't think that's asking for too much. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this; Bbb23 makes a lot of blocks (1848 since the start of the year; seventh after Materialscientist (19382), ST47 (8825), HJ Mitchell (3658), Widr (3326), Blablubbs (2186), and ScottishFinnishRadish (2068)). A couple of mistakes among these aren't unreasonable, as long as Bbb23 is open to recognizing when they have made mistakes and reversing them with an apology to the incorrectly blocked editor and an undertaking to learn from the experience.
 * I am more concerned with Beyond My Ken's behavior in trying to shut down this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is well within any editor's discretion, admin or no, to try to preserve order by curbing an obviously-unproductive discussion. The airing of the grievances here is serving no purpose. Zaathras (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing the discussion? Sure. Closing the discussion, then after being reverted on that close, engaging with said discussion (and the reverter) by posting a fairly high volume of hyperbolic statements in regards to the behaviour of other participants, their motivations, and how bad it is that the discussion remains open?
 * Even if one genuinely disagrees with the concerns being raised, and believes the discussion should be closed asap, I'd think it's fairly obvious that such comments 1. are only prolonging said discussion, not curbing it; and 2. are a bit closer to WP:BLUDGEON territory than strictly ideal. AddWitty  NameHere  11:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's nice to give them something to talk about in the forum's of the other place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Disagreeing with someone's concerns about an admin's actions is quite distinct from claiming that it's unacceptable to raise concerns, and it's unfortunate that this thread includes a lot of the latter. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Related matter, Qirtaiba unblock request
Seeing how this whole apple cart is teetering, may as well point out that User:Qirtaiba has had an as-yet-unanswered unblock request up for around 3 hours now. Zaathras (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've declined it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you both! Btw, I find it curious that the unblock request mentions misinformation by the far-right, seeing as the far-right attempted to soften their image, too, supplanting white supremacist → white separatist — similarly to this insidious pedo → MAP effort. And as they say: birds of a feather. El_C 11:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While you're blocking one professional connected with Prostasia, You might also consider amending the block on Qirtaiba's colleague User:James Cantor to include child protection issues. You can see in this diff [] that User:Qirtaiba manipulating the editors of Cantor's BLP into removing a reference to Cantor's tweet advocating that "P" for pedophile be added into the LGB... string of letters in close proximity to a mention of Prostasia as something controversial. Qirtaiba failed to declare his conflict of interest in wanting to remove the reference to his then employers in connnection with such a clumsy attempt at pedophile advocacy. The Media Matters for America article mentioned in the diff is at https://www.mediamatters.org/gays-against-groomers/florida-expert-formerly-slated-testify-favor-trans-health-care-ban-once and the tweet is included there with Media Matters' explanation of exactly what it is referring to. You can see confirmation at [] that User:James Cantor is indeed James Cantor 82.45.168.246 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's right, Media Matters for America, a well-known far-right entity! Thanks for the info, IP. It is disturbing. ping blocking admin. El_C 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not a topic I want to go anywhere near. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion at Talk:Windows 10 version history
There's a block evasion occurring at Talk:Windows 10 version history with an IP who insists reducing article sizes despite with a current consensus of three editors in favour of keeping the article as is. The editor in question is also pointy with their comments.

Previous IPs currently blocked for DE: 102.158.45.113, 102.159.121.91, and 197.0.128.0/17.

The new IPs in question are: 197.244.87.87, 197.244.135.236, 197.238.159.62, 197.244.236.124, 197.238.245.211, 197.240.17.149, 197.238.55.142, and 197.240.255.227.

The new IPs originate from Tunisia, like the previous IPs, though the city, while they repeat, often changes. They also canvassed a user into the discussion. While the edits in question differ, there appears repeated behaviour of going against consensus. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 22:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The IP keeps jumping, so the .124 address is the one with the ANI notice. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 22:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I messaged @ user talk:oshwa that I leave edit summaries and that edits where focused on update windows 11 version history and other pages related to windows 10 version history primarily. The blocked IPs, on the other hand, as I can tell, leave no edit summaries, edit on TV programs and entertainment and have their edits tagged "REVERTed". I've no idea Y in the world this issue has been taken to the notice board. And, to be honest, I was the user who reduced pages like windows 8.1 and windows 11 by removing extra spaces and protection templates in addition. No other user complained to me about this. Y ®️ U the only user criticizing my editing behavior right now?197.238.245.211 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the involved parties in this edit request, we have explained why we declined that, but ips are just submitting it again and again. Considering Wp:de, maybe we need a partial block. -Lemonaka‎  23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I've attempetted to convince those users multiple times that my proposed edits are based on previous consensus, not based on my matters of opinion, and that they have nothing to do with the visual appearance of the page. Currently, the article's size is 122,488 bytes as of this edit. Whereas this way without extra spaces and punctuations is 121,313 bytes. If anyone does not believe me there aren't any visual changes, then click/tap on that my mentioned revision and compare it with the official page visually like what I did.197.240.17.149 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected Talk:Windows 10 version history for three days as a hint that your campaign must stop. First, saving a few kilobytes by removing spaces or whatever is not useful (make a proposal at WP:IDEA if you think the principle is worthwhile). Second, consensus is against you so bludgeoning the issue is disruptive. I will watch the page for a while and block anyone who is disruptive when the protection expires. Please ping me to the talk page if I don't notice a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I will not surrender my comments as long as that replacement isn't made. If my requested changes are applied, then I agree to be 197.range-blocked for seven days. Deal, anyone?197.240.255.227 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq Opps, this seemed to be WP:CIR and WP:IDHT -Lemonaka‎  17:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @197.240.255.227 This is not a dealing place or a market, why you considered that give me a block then my changes will be applied? That's totally against current consensus. Lots of editors on that page told you it's useless to remove such spaces, why you still insist on it? -Lemonaka‎  17:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because, as I've mentioned many times tirelessly, to decrease the size of the article and prevent it from growing too quickly in the future as it gets updated. As according to what I mentioned somewhere above, if the official article gets to be replaced with this revision then a total number of 1,175 bytes would be removed. If anybody does this change, then please do not 4get to range-block me. However, as long as my requested changes remain not done, then don't consider blocking me.197.240.255.227 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't how consensus works. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another instance of canvassing. This is getting disruptive and a clear case of IDHT. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 18:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CallmemirelaWP:DENY applied, waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka‎  18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I will not surrender my comments as long as that replacement isn't made. If my requested changes are applied, then I agree to be 197.range-blocked for seven days. Deal, anyone?197.240.255.227 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Per below, I accidentally copied IP's comment and placed it below thinking it was the original. I'm striking it given it was my fault. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 16:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is never a deal. That's all, more trolling will give you longer block and no one want to make that changes. -Lemonaka‎  18:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that comment. I only made one above. Who on earth made a copy of my comment here?197.240.255.227 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure YOU did. And I don't buy a Joe job when | all contributions 9 from this IP are ideologically consistent. EducatedRedneck (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it was not me. I would neither make double comments on one page @ a time on 15:10 UTC nor copy and paste my comment. But now I know who did it and this proves everything.197.238.83.214 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying you never made any comment about a deal. It does seem that Callmemirela accidentally duplicated your comment. My mistake. :) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to drag this out but I have left another warning at User talk:197.240.255.227 in an attempt to avoid the inevitable. I will act after this, or thank anyone else who decides to block now. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked 197.244.0.0/16, 197.238.0.0/16, and 197.240.0.0/16 for a month each. Doesn't look like there will be much, if any collateral damage from these, and the disruption has been going on since the beginning of May. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia
This user has recently been WP:HOUNDing me over a long-resolved incident on commons that is at least several months old. Going back through their talk archives I noticed a years-long pattern of uncivil behavior and personal attacks that is “resolved” or forgotten during the moment but inevitably comes up again later in a different form. While 90% of this user’s activity is constructive their contemptuous treatment of users they strongly disagree with is unacceptable.

Diffs:
 * Cross-wiki hounding
 * Called out by an editor who otherwise agreed with them
 * Using an edit summary to attack me
 * Editing for the sole purpose of continuing indirect harassment thru summaries
 * User systematically deleting unflattering talk page notices

Past incivilty: Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * rude response to edit warring notice
 * user complains of hostility
 * personal attacks
 * block skirting
 * general warning
 * more personal attacks
 * incivility (NGS is no longer in good standing but still evidence of a long-term behavioral issue)
 * recent uncivil editing summary


 * Your last entry under "Diffs" is expressly allowed per WP:REMOVED, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages...There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so." No one is to be held under any suspicion for removing notices from their own user talk pages.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it’s allowed, but deleting as many “bad” entries as possible immediately after I linked to them is a bad look. Dronebogus (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a bad look. Warnings are not scarlet letters and people can remove them at any time. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That being said, the first diff is definitely problematic. It seems to have come out of left field, and a complete non sequitur, except to express some personal grudge with you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, it was very tangential to the discussion, and I have made no attempt to restore the remark after DB removed it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not making an attempt to restore it is not the same as understanding what was wrong with it in the first place. Do you understand why you should have not said what you said?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had my own issues with Hemiauchenia in the recent past. Back in September 2022, Hemi the word "harassing" from a sentence about the discussion thread activities on Kiwi Farms, with the edit summary "Think this is more clear". I  this, as I saw it as minimising the well known harassment that originates from that site. Hemiauchenia removed it  stating that the removal was not minimising the harassment as the words "harass" and "harassment" were used 30 times in the rest of the article. I  a second time, stating that it was again minimising the harassment from the site and also begging the question of what the purpose of the discussion threads were. Hemiauchenia then  one more time, stating that I had a complete inability to assume good faith of editors and that he had no reason to bother discussing with [me] further on the topic.
 * While I freely admit that I shouldn't have reverted after Hemiauchenia's second removal and instead should have opened a discussion on the article talk page, I nonetheless found at the time their final comment to be both an aspersion due to the implication that I assume bad faith about all editors, and antithetical to any form of discussion based consensus due to the finality of I have no reason to bother discussing with you further on the topic. I didn't raise it at the time as I didn't want to antagonise Hemiauchenia further, but as we're now talking about their conduct I believe this fits in with the broader pattern of incivility that Dronebogus is discussing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this is being dragged up. I have no issue with the idea that Kiwi Farms is a forum that engages in harassment, and I think the current "facilitates the discussion and harrassment of online figures and communities" is a decent summary of the forum. I even added antisemitism related material from Jewish publication The Forward. My only issue is that I thought Kiwi Farms should be described encyclopedically as to the sources. I have no issue with your editing. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For why I brought this up, the problem is as with the other diffs above, with what you said. You insinuated in an edit summary that I had an inability to assume good faith of any editors. That's a pretty strong aspersion to cast at a behavioural noticeboard, let alone in an article edit summary. You then closed the door on any further discussion on the merits of the edit you made at the time by stating that you had no reason to bother discussing with [me] further on the topic. Stating that you were not going to engage with a discussion on the edit is anthetical to the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS policy point.
 * The first half of that sentence is something you really only should state at a behavioural noticeboard, in conjunction with strong diffs. The second part is not really something you should ever say as it closes the door on finding any sort of discussion consensus on the merits of an edit or sequence of edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I admit some of my initial interactions were not ideal on that article, but I think just reducing my conduct to just those interactions you brought up is misleading, and my later interactions on that article were a lot more collaborative (e.g. talk page interactions in Talk:Kiwi_Farms/Archive_5), I want to re-iterate that my testy comments towards you are bygone, and do not reflect my current opinions on your editing. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

To explain the context of what Dronebogus is going on about here, on Commons, Dronebogus uploaded self-drawn highly graphic nsfw artwork of anime Wikipedia mascot Wikipedia-tan, who is usually depicted as a cute little girl, which Dronebogus claimed was "aged up". In August 2022. I nominated this file for deletion, and the file was deleted following the input of multiple pariticipants. I recently mentioned this during a file for deletion discussion, which Dronebogus has claimed was an attempt at hounding him. Other than reverting him from my talkpage with additional comments, I have made no further attempt to engage with him about the matter at the file discussion or restore the remark after DroneBogus removed it. As far as I am aware, I have not interacted with Dronebogus since the original deletion discussion until now.

As for the other incidents Dronebogus has brought up, it's relatively easy to cherry-pick the handful of testy interactions I've had with other users over years I have been active on Wikipedia and make my interaction record seem a lot worse than it is. I don't think my tone during these interactions was appropriate, but I don't think they are representative of the way I interact with other Wikipedians generally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment you note as "recently mentioned" is unacceptable in tone and context, however. It had no bearing on the discussion at hand, and only served to dredge up a past conflict for the sole purpose of insulting and embarassing Dronebogus about a months-old, unrelated manner.  It was extremely uncalled for.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have completely disengaged from that ffd discussion have no intent to further comment in it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I complained about it to you, and rather than apologizing you doubled down in the most backhanded way possible (by deleting it and leaving a cruel, insulting edit summary). That is not letting it drop. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia: Disengaging from it is not the same as expressing understanding that the comment was wrong from its inception, and should have not been made. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like it may be unclear here, so I will clarify for the record that Wikipe-tan is a fictional character, meant to be a personification of the encyclopedia. She does not have an age, because she does not exist in the physical world. The sexual abuse of children is a serious issue of extreme gravity, whereas I would aver that some guy drawing a picture of boobs on the Internet is not. It may be tasteless, or out of scope, but I really don't think that it is worth digging it up and rolling around in it at such length, certainly not at an unrelated FFD and definitely not here. jp×g 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by Dronebogus's evidence here, especially how it started: If you do that I’m just nominating it as a copyvio. That said, I'd support a 2-way I-ban. RAN1 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have literally barely interacted with Dronebogus over my time of Wikipedia editing, so I don't think a 2 way iban is warranted. I think an informal "avoid each other, but no formal or self-imposed interaction ban" suffices. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to request a mutual interaction ban. But Hemia’s personal attack was a pretty lame hyper-escalation reaction to a perhaps not especially tactful but not overly uncivil comment. Dronebogus (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Interaction bans are annoying for both parties. I'd rather we just agree to informally avoid each other and I will cease to bother you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is in essence what Hemiauchenia said in those diffs: "Hey remember when you drew those creepy lewd pictures of our mascot and everyone agreed they were terrible and sucked? Ps. Go away, I have no respect for you as an editor, and you are barely tolerated on this website as is." Obviously that's very out of line and in my opinion, deserves a formal warning or sanctions. Accusing someone of drawing "highly sexualised drawings of a character depicted as a minor" is a grave allegation. Serious accusations require serious evidence, and I don't see it. It's certainly possible to draw Wikipe-tan as an adult e.g.. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I clarified in another edit summary on my talkpage that Dronebogus claimed she was drawn as an adult and that I was not personally accusing him of drawing child porn. However, current Wikipedia ArbCom member Beeblebrox said in the image deletion discussion You're basically making your own child porn. You should probably stop talking now., and there were other comments by jps along similar lines. Rhododendrites remarked Regarding the "as an adult" part: While not child pornography itself, if you're inspired by a child to draw a sexualized grown-up version of them, that's still creepy as hell Again, I would rather this matter just be dropped. I don't want to anatagonise Dronebogus further over this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not that you're bringing up old grudges or anything... Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of dropping it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also am kind of appalled to know Beeblebrox is an Arb and making patently false accusations of pedophilia (“sexualized adult version of a child character” is light-years from child pornography no matter how creepy it is) Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the (implied) "is Wikipe-tan a child" question: the answer is sometimes. You can take a look at a gallery of the original artist's drawings here. In some pictures she is, in some it's ambiguous and in some, she clearly isn't e.g. In my opinion  summarises it pretty well. Based on that I think it is somewhat unfair to characterize tan definitively as a "child character" and draw conclusions on that basis. I have no idea what Dronebogus actually draw as the file is deleted, but I doubt the "basically child porn" label was warranted, and that was probably conduct unbecoming from Beeblebrox et. al.. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For ease-of-reference, and without broader comment on the merits, the relevant files appear to be: c:File:Wikipe-tan Nude.png, c:File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 sitting nude.png, c:File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 topless.png, c:File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 nude.png, and c:File:Wikipe-tan Topless.png. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ones with “minna no kisekae” in the name are not of my creation and come from the same set as this image. As for the others they were basically the same (i.e. very clearly an adult) Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support heavy WP:TROUT to Hemiauchenia for making the comments here, and they should likely apologize for having done so in the first place. But what I overall see here is two editors who I have had very pleasant interactions with over the years, getting into a bit of a slap fight over trivial things and dredging it up/salting it into old wounds. Stop that. I don't think Dronebogus is wrong to be upset about it, but I also don't think this was worth an ANI complaint, and think they are, at best, lengthening the dispute by engaging with it. Hemiauchenia, you should also stop bringing up old scores in situations like this, as it should be very clear the consequences are hurtful to other editors like DB. And then, when faced with a situation where you have a choice between engaging with disputes that are likely not actionable like this, and leaving it alone to die on its own, I would recommend almost always to just stop commenting. That goes for both of you! And its advice I find very hard to follow myself, but it is good advice nonetheless. Can't everybody just play nice? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but how many times is Hemia going to do this before getting even a formal warning? These below-the-belt insults over petty disputes every few months need to stop. Dronebogus (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * just out of curiosity, do you honestly not think someone who bothered to comb through your contribs, missteps, and warnings over a long period of time could come up with a similar list of diffs? I've found the best course of action when encountering Dronebogus to unwatch and move on, and I don't support any interaction bans here. I support closing this thread with no action needed, and some solid looks in the mirror. I am grateful to finally know why I've seen that cartoon image on some Wiki pages over the years (now I know what it is, for what that's worth); I hope this thread has run its course. In my encounter with you, Dronebogus, you might thank your lucky stars that I chose to unwatch after reading the linked "prequel" explaining the background of behaviors, rather than pursue arb enforcement in the infobox case, because, simply not worth the time.  Perspective, please, before bringing things to ANI.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m aware that my past behavior isn’t exemplary, but I’ve actually been put in line, harshly, for it, and don’t do it anymore. Hemia does the same exact bad things over and over and gets an informal slap on the wrist every single time. There’s a double standard going on here. Dronebogus (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm ... well, that sounds much like the same responses from you last December that led me to leave a Featured article I've followed and maintained for 15 years (I had a strong sense you did not see how you had poisoned that discussion, and others before it, and were unlikely to heed sensible and collegial messages from others). We all make mistakes on Wikipedia; so do you. Drudging up old diffs at ANI doesn't impress me unless they are really worthy of attention from admins beyond the peanut gallery. I wonder if you consider that using your Wiki-time making a nude picture of a silly cartoon, and then calling attention to that with an ill-supported charge of HOUNDING, is really the best use of ANI or anyone's time? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are also drudging up old diffs here. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, you miss the point (spectacularly); the point being, anyone can dredge up a list of diffs on any long-term editor. Unless you've got something really damning, is this a good use of ANI? If you don't get along with an editor who you find irritating, move along.  Wikipedia is a very big place. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

JML1148's Wikihounding - Proposed interaction ban
ANI Withdrawn

Over the last 2 days, multiple past articles of mine have been receiving extra attention from User:JML1148, including articles and discussions not relevant to our disputes on the AfD board

This has escalated this afternoon toward his targeting of my good-faith article creations: e.g. William_Street_Bird

As well as historical article creations; including on Australian-law related topics, (a particular interest of mine here): e.g. Companion rule (Australian Criminal law) Five minutes ago, he nominated 'Companion Rule' for deletion, despite (1) it being specifically mentioned in multiple Australian High Court judgements, clearly passing the notability threshold; and (2) it being a distinct topic from 'right to silence'

This has continued despite my requests that he stop harassing; and I think we are beginning to approach clear wikihounding territory. I am also concerned this is a form of GRAVEDANCING, given that I am unable to participate in the AfDs relating to these AusLaw topics

I propose a two-way interaction ban between myself and JML1148. It would be a good opportunity for things to reset given the contentious AfD discussions earlier today.

Thank you Jack4576 (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It is acceptable for users to nominate articles at AfD. William Street Bird is very poorly sourced and seems to be on its way to deletion. As for this article, we'll see how the AfD goes. Constructively cleaning up Wikipedia by deleting poorly sourced articles is not GRAVEDANCING, and it is not unacceptable for JML1148 to do so. An interaction ban wouldn't do anything anyway. If you're topic banned from AfDs, how would an interaction ban prevent JML1148 from nominating articles you created at AfD? I recommend this retaliatory ANI filing be closed. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "poorly sourced" (?) It contains two references to law journal articles that discuss the topic at length
 * Seriously questions abound as to your competence in parsing sources Nythar Jack4576 (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I said William Street Bird was poorly sourced. I haven't examined the other article. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 08:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given Nythar's point about an interaction ban not preventing targeted deletion nominations, I propose an alternative measure be taken; appropriate to address this form of WikiHounding Jack4576 (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:BOOMERANG has to be considered here. Jack made a single comment on my talk page for me to stop harrasing (which is a false statement; I have nominated two articles of his for deletion). This isn't WP:GRAVEDANCING, as what I did (look through his created pages) is made clear in the essay that it isn't gravedancing (quote: "Going through the pages created by an editor who was blocked or banned for, or who was later discovered to have been engaged in, disruptive editing related to content in article space and improving their articles to meet Wikipedia standards and policies. Where this is not possible they may still of course be nominated for deletion.") I think it is Jack that has gone beyond the pale here, making false allegations of harrasment and seemingly not learning after the first AN/I thread. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trawling through my articles, nominating them for deletion, without my ability to participate in the relevant AfD discussion
 * Worse, the articles you are nominating are clearly within guidelines, as the well-sourced Companion rule (Australian Criminal law) article demonstrates
 * If this isn't gravedancing, pray tell what would be
 * How about you just take a wikibreak for a bit and treat my articles as you would treat the other editor's on this site
 * It is not only the above two articles, an analysis between our accounts show you have been wikihounding me for a number of days now Jack4576 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My ban was for AfD participation,  it was not for  "disruptive editing related to content in article space" Jack4576 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was quoting WP:GRAVEDANCING there. Note the the last sentence of the quote. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 09:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you provide diffs of said conduct? JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 09:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You also have been trawling through GA assessments; and when I was active at AfD, you were WikiHounding me there all throughout the discussion taking place Jack4576 (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I reassessed a single GA assessment, and that came from the suggestion of VickKiang. The first AN/I discussion was not WP:WIKIHOUND, as it was on a single discussion, was constructive, you were not followed between pages, and it was not done with the intention of distress. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 09:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Propose Trouterang or Warning. First, some context I didn't see brought up here explicitly: was the user who started the AN/I thread through which Jack4576 was topic banned from AFD. With that in mind I think it no large leap in logic to deduce that this filing is absolutely retaliatory. Jack4576 was TBanned from AFD for disrupting AFDs, and this AN/I is essentially an attempt to further disrupt AFDs by stopping someone they disagree with from participating in AFDs. Judging by this morning's ArbCom appeal that was opened and swiftly retracted by Jack4576, and now this AN/I, I think it's safe to say that Jack4576 isn't 'over it' yet, nor have they accepted that the community, the core of Wikipedia, has decided they should take a break from AFD. This was itself an element of the thread they were banned because of; They rejected community consensus in favor of what they thought was right. I believe that emotions are running hot, which is to be expected from people passionate about Wikipedia, so this further battleground behavior deserves a big wet trout as a warning to knock it off, cool their head, and either take a wikibreak or evolve and contribute constructively elsewhere. If they continue to thrash about and target the 'culprits' of their block, then we can proceed to further sanctions. But I don't think a full BOOMERANG is necessary at this time... even if they already insulted someone's competence in this thread. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How much longer do we need to put up with Jack’s NOTHERE attitude? In just the past 48 hours we’ve had BLUDGEON, IDHT, ASPERSIONS, BATTLEGROUND, and retaliation. At this point I’m also beginning to suspect a problem with WP:CIR. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:D47:EB1E:4BF3:B8C (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with JML1148 participating in AfDs, I was concerned that my law articles were genuinely being hounded; as I am proud of their contribution to the encyclopaedia
 * I accept upon a closer look at the edit record that this ANI was premature
 * I have withdrawn it now and I apologise Jack4576 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here, Jack continues to cast aspersions, accusing editors he disagrees with of feeling the need to sabotage the utility of WP as an information source for trivialities. He also refers to an active policy as making this encyclopaedia worse because of the legalistic over reliance by deletionists. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 14:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be beneficial to expand Jack's topic ban to "Deletion, broadly construed". BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a part of a greater trend of Jack4576 shotgun-blasting political or internal-WP RFC !votes in quick succession. The problem I see in this is that most of these are single sentence !votes, cast so quickly from one to another that I refuse to believe they are actually researching the topic and reading the discussions before they add theirs. Especially since some of these RFC contribs   really are just pure votes with no comment substance to them. All but one of these come from one to five minutes after the last. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * [358] I took the time to read Wes Sideman’s arguments before contributing my opinion
 * [356] & [357] are incredibly simple.
 * Should we include more information in political info boxes? Yes
 * Would the american national anthem article benefit from the lyrics being included? Yes
 * One doesn’t need to read a dissertation to form an opinion on those. I don’t see the issue quite honestly.
 * Re: Nythar’s comment above, I did not cast aspersions toward a particular editor. (what is the issue?) It’s fine to oppose a policy as written in anticipation of how it will be interpreted.
 * Jack4576 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you aren't assuming bad faith of a few named editors, just editors of a certain group in general. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 15:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not fine to accuse other editors, whether individually or as a group, of sabotage. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm equally concerned by their RfC comment in the middle of that run, at Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia, made within two minutes of their comments at the Star Spangled Banner and Neo-Confederates discussions,which was an entirely useless comment that suggests they haven't read the discussion, with similarly fast participation later on in the day as well. signed,Rosguill talk 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef of Jack4576 - Jack is taking up too much of the communities time with his continued BLUDGEONING and failures to get the point. The aspersions of sabotage show an unwillingness to cooperate or self-reflect, qualities which go a long way on the project. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of 'Votes for Blocking' discussions, but Jack should realise that at this point their plan to exhaust the community's patience in order to gain free rein to dictate our inclusion policies is only half working: they are about to exhaust the community's patience. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mine's already totally spent just reading these two threads. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 18:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if JML would wait at least a week before nominating any more of Jack's articles for deletion. That said, JML's request for a re-evaluation of Jack's GA review of How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations was completely appropriate.  Jack -- if you can't view that type of thing as "advice" rather than as an "attack", you are likely to end up blocked. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 casting aspersions
User:Serial Number 54129 made a false accusation about me, referring to a years-old discussion, off-topic in a discussion that they didn’t otherwise participate in. I challenged it and they “apologized” with another false accusation (yes, things were said in the old, closed discussion, but not what Serial Number 54129 asserted). They also tried to canvas an editor they thought might help pile on.

I also directly asked them to strike, but they ignored and archived my comment.

Although two uninvolved editors did criticize the inappropriate comm ents, I consider the false accusations to be misleading and WP:ASPERSIONS, and believe it’s reasonable to ask for the entire comment to be stricken or deleted, either by Serial Number 54129 or by an uninvolved admin.

Thanks. —Michael Z. 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User notified of this request. —Michael Z. 17:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the linked discussion; not familiar with all of the dramatis personae here, so I am sure there are all kinds of illustrious explanations for why this was actually an extremely cool and normal thing to say, but it seems somewhat unwarranted and uncollegial to me. jp×g 09:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck sake, you're taking this to ANI? Move on. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * EEng, there are nicer ways to say that. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's warranted. This filing is ridiculous  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So editors can just ignore WP:CIVIL, post any shit they want, go about their way, and their targets deserve to get some more profane abuse from administrators? Looking forward to talk pages of the future. Not what one expects, but good to know. Thank you, for fuck’s sake. —Michael Z. 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do in that case is to ignore it and try and de-escalate the situation. One way of doing it is to work out why the editor is being uncivil, take a step back and address that issue on its own merits. Indeed, as WP:CIVIL advises us, "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How can I determine why they attacked me? They escalated by posting further lies, then refused to respond there, on their talk page, or here. How do I “de-escalate” except by asking uninvolved admins to disapprove of the behaviour with a concrete response, instead of telling me how I can be better? How do I continue editing Wikipedia knowing that admins will never do anything to prevent slander about me from accumulating permanently on discussion pages? I came to ANI instead of snapping back.
 * If ANI is a waste of time, what can I do except delete the slanderous comment myself or loudly advertise its nature on the talk page where it was committed? Since admins here have confirmed my accusation, but refused to use their authority to do anything about it except express sympathy, chide me, and swear at me, I suppose I can escalate to WP:AE. —Michael Z. 16:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no memory of ever interacting with Serial Number 54129 before this personal attack. —Michael Z. 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've learned your mistake, and won't interact with them again... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jayron, I'm not sure what you mean with this remark. Are you suggesting anyone who interacts with SN makes a mistake? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you're intending for a message similar to Courcelles below, chiding Michael for something, but as written this seems open to misinterpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Por que no los dos? What I was saying was, when there is an negative interaction (regardless of who is at fault), disengaging and letting the matter drop is generally a useful way to proceed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * when there is an negative interaction
 * I take issue with this assessment, because it appears there was no interaction before SerialNo lashed out with accusations, and then merely faux-apologized with more accusations. Dropping the matter seems like poor advice for a direct personal attack out of nowhere. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what that means. You mean when they conduct another unprovoked personal attack against me I should suck it up and take it silently? Ignore false accusations and let them accumulate for posterity? There’s no other way to interpret that, given the facts. —Michael Z. 23:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with you, and I'm disappointed by the responses of several editors above who really should know better. Unless I'm missing something, there was no good reason for SN54129 to make a personal comment about you in the first place, and the 'apology' merely replaced one unsubstantiated accusation with another. So yeah, the so-called apology was nothing of the sort. Ritchie's suggestion to try and work out why someone is being uncivil is good advice in many cases, but not here since the personal attack appears to have been unprompted. That said, although you would have been wiser to file this complaint at that time rather than waiting a week, I doubt anything would have happened. While those comments are quite rude and well below what I would expect from SN54129, they aren't bad enough to warrant sanctions. But while there was nothing much for this board to do, the lack of empathy displayed above is appalling. Not sure what else to tell you, though. Sometimes this board gets it wrong. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I didn’t wait a week. I waited until it was clear that Serial Number 54129 refused to respond on their talk page and then posted here when I was able.
 * This board could strike or remove the slanderous comment. That’s all I asked for. —Michael Z. 02:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to make clear, SN was clearly and unambiguously in the wrong here. They should not have done what they did, and there is no possible excuse that could be offered up that would make it okay.  Having said that, sometimes the effort spent getting a pound of flesh is better spent doing something else.  Retribution is not always worth the effort.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history with a fresh pair of eyes, I see SN54129 made a remark that he realised was factually incorrect, and struck it. That seems to resolve the conduct dispute. Are there any further examples of them being continually disruptive and requiring administrator intervention? If not, I would suggest this is akin to a cumulonimbus in a tea urn. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I've had a drink with SN54129 in real life, though he is most definitely not a hanger-on of mine and is quite happy to criticise my actions if he feels it's necessary. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They struck the original completely false accusation, and then, along with a fake “apology,” added a different accusation that is harder to check, using words that appear in the old conversation referred to: “you were . . . accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor.” If that were a mistake, their refusal to take responsibility or take it back makes it a lie. You see: you’ve fallen for it. It’s fair to ask for it to be struck or deleted. —Michael Z. 14:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * After my own look, at absolute most this needs a gentle reminder to check their facts before speaking to SN54129, which is a general reminder all those of us with long wiki-histories can use. Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Related: someone created a new account wikidata:User:CerealNo (“serial no.”) and defaced my talk page there with extremely obscene imagery. Whoever it was evidently wanted me to understand that their harassment is connected to this complaint. —Michael Z. 01:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Serial Number 54129, did you do that? —Michael Z. 01:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should probably strike that. It looks too much like an accusation, and frankly I can't imagine that SN54129 would do something so foolish. It's almost certainly a troll. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not an accusation. Serial Number 54129 Should be notified and given the opportunity to respond. For all I know it’s somebody wanting to set them up or take advantage of this against me. Anyway you’re naïve to insist someone created an account and targeted me with “CerealNo,” shortly after Serial No conducted an unprovoked attack with falsehoods against me, by coincidence.
 * I’ve never been targeted with anything close to such hostile obscenity before, despite being in numerous disputes. It’s extremely upsetting. Your unsympathetic response is extremely inappropriate. —Michael Z. 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "CerealNo" account is painfully obvious trolling; there's a dozen different LTAs who might be responsible for that sort of thing. I echo Lepricavark's suggestion that you drop this and not feed the trolls. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That particular brand of vandalism was reported on Wikidata a few days ago; I understand it can be distressing, but it is definitely unrelated to whatever is going on in this thread. –FlyingAce✈hello 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not insisting that it is a complete coincidence. Obviously whoever targeted your Wikidata page was inspired by this thread. Bearing in mind that this is a very high-visibility page, it is very, very likely that someone other than SN54129 (and it could theoretically be anyone in the world with access to Wikipedia) created that account for the purpose of further provoking you. It was not my intention to be unsympathetic, and I believe I made that very clear in my first comment. While I agree that SN's initial comment and pseudo-apology were both inappropriate, I don't think any admins on this board will strike them. My hope is that SN would be willing to self-reflect, admit that the comments were out of order, and strike them voluntarily. But given that they haven't engaged in this thread at all, I'm not holding my breath. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 05:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sorry to see you go through this. Let me with no qualifications mention that you shouldn't have been thrown such comments. And your filing of a complaint is perfectly okay, as it has the benefit of allowing other editors to understand the context and background of the issue and to keep an eye out so that in the future, if a similar issue arose, we can connect the dots. Having said that, if I may dare to speak on Sn's behalf, he is not a bad guy at all. I have interacted with him occasionally and found him to be extremely congenial and supportive (yes, he does snap sometimes, but that is sometimes... and he almost always comes around to ensuring he corrects his errors in spirit and in actions). An olive branch never hurts, and I would suggest extend to him the same this time... Like I said, he's not a bad guy at all, and would come around. That said, I will reiterate and hope that you don't go through such experiences again. Warmly, Lourdes  08:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You want me to respond to unprovoked harassment by extending “an olive branch”? What does that mean? Apologize to my “congenial and supportive” slanderer for not committing the offences they accused me of?
 * If coming to ANI is pointless and a waste of time and effort, maybe I should start harassing them, and perhaps you will lecture them about how great I am and how they can improve their behaviour.
 * Why are you even here? —Michael Z. 15:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I hear you. I understand you are in a space where you feel slighted and are hitting back at anyone who stops short of asking for action against Sn (which is not going to happen at all). While I would advise you to not push everyone into the "either with me or against me" category, I would stop here and wish you the best with this thread. Lourdes  04:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. Serial Number 54129 hasn't edited since this thread was created. I looked at the second accusation provided by Mzajac, noticed there were no diffs so I could check it for factual accuracy, and so left him a note saying that he should make sure he supplies diffs straightaway when making those sort of accusations. Specifically, the accusation is "You were not suspected of canvassing, I see on a re-read, but accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor." Where were the accusations made, and which editors supported them? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this is getting similar to WP:UBA and stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all in the very long discussion that SN did link to: Talk:Kyiv/Archive_7. It looks like Michael got into an extended back-and-forth with the user SN pinged to the wikiproject talk page, and the bit about bigotry, racism, and harassment was set off by one of Michael's comments that "normalizing [a particular perspective] is a step towards bigotry and racism". He more or less insinuated that someone else was verging on bigotry and racism, which that person understandably didn't care for. The other person eventually asked if this was "some kind of harassment". It doesn't look like Michael was accused of bigotry and racism at all AFAICT, although his contributions there seemed to increase rather than reduce tensions, so I could understand remembering his comments unfavorably. Still, if you're going to try to poison the well twice, at least bring the real poison rather than slap a skull-and-crossbones sticker on some old vinegar. So it's inappropriate, but we're not looking at some pattern of egregious rhetoric, so "unblockables" isn't really relevant. We're in that large swath of territory where something is inappropriate but doesn't rise to the level of any real action being taken. Ideally SN would just pop in with a mea culpa or better evidence and this could be closed as resolved. Instead, it probably needs some sort of "please don't do that" or "reminder" about casting aspersions or content-not-contributors or some other stuff we all know SN is already aware of but performative tsk-tsking is the only option left, short of "just put up with it". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 12:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know that tsk-tsking is entirely performative; if this happens again in the future (ideally it won't), we can point to this thread and say you were asked to not do this, why is this becoming a pattern? Giving someone feedback that their conduct wasn't ideal is helpful to them, and to the project. Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. That's what I mean by performative (or maybe performative): rather than saying something that amounts to tsk-tsk in the thread, performing it for the record. Along the same lines, "reminder" in quotes for the kind of official reminder we see in closing statements and arbcom findings (not that I love our language games, but they serve a purpose). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (Aside: I believe I merely exposed tensions by openly bringing attention to unacceptable speech that was present, taken for granted, and on the road to becoming routine in the subject area. I continue to do so and believe it has contributed to a less hostile environment.) —Michael Z. 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As pointed out by Rhododendrites, it was in the link provided by SN54129, and indeed he was wrong in his accusation. OP was not accused of racism and bigotry, but of harassing other users with accusations of racism and bigotry (in particular Impru20, the user SN54129 pinged, but TaivoLinguist also felt himself similarly accused), and it was user Fyunck who supported Impru20 in defending himself of the accusations (diffs of the statements Impru20 found offensive:, ). Inasmuch as the accusation seems to be based on an erroneous, superficial reading of the discussion, I would suggest user Serial Number 54129 rectify his accusation or withdraw it.
 * I can understand the displeasure at being accused of racism, but I would have a lot more sympathy for OP had he not been freely accusing other people of national discrimination and overt anti-Ukrainian bias himself. While it is true that it's an old discussion, as he himself has stated here OP continue[s] to do so because he believe[s] it has contributed to a less hostile environment (!). We were here at ANI a few months ago with another report from him, that time against user Paul Siebert, accusing him of personal conspiracy theories about the non-existence of a nation precisely when such conspiracy theories are being used to incite genocide in Ukraine based on a dishonestly edited quote, as noted by user Ealdgyth, who also pointed to the misleading framing of the quote alongside two (completely unrelated) news articles on Vladimir Putin. The report was closed by Salvio Giuliano as a [s]torm in a teapot. Weeks before this report, and also at ANI, OP had also accused me of writing offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine . Trying to link fellow editors to Putin and accusing them of echoing statements inciting genocide is, I believe, a far graver aspersion, and I struggle to see how this "will dish it out but will not take it" attitude is conduct becoming an administrator, but it is not my place to question it. What I can assure you, however, is that there is no way in hell this contributed to a less hostile environment. I would like to repeat what Ealdgyth said in the diff linked above: If the editors in the topic area would try to dial DOWN the temperature rather than dial it up all the time, there might be some progress made. At this point, however, maybe it's jut impossible. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Misleading” and “dishonest” are your words, not @Ealdgyth’s. My quotation was neither, at least for anyone who understands how quoting with brackets and dots work, and who can follow an associated link to see the context. Please provide diffs to all the quotations you’ve used to accuse me, so I can respond adequately.
 * So you don’t like something I wrote in the past. Does that mean unprovoked attacks and lies about me should be tolerated and preserved on discussion pages or not? —Michael Z. 00:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of anything, but all the relevant diffs are there, at least (to paraphrase you) for anyone who understands how a mouse works...
 * But my point is a far simpler one - your behaviour is a driver of conflict in the area, and not, as you say, a contribution to a less hostile environment. You fail to assume good faith and are constantly casting aspersions regarding other users in good standing, yet at the same time get worked up when you're on the receiving end of any such aspersion. I was very clear in stating that SN54129 should either rectify or withdraw his accusation, but I think you would do well to look at your own behaviour in the area. Ostalgia (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see this is about previous discussions between me and you. I didn’t realize, as you didn’t mention it and I hadn’t combed through all your diffs. There are a couple of others, too, at talk:Mykola Sumtsov and talk:Arkhip Kuindzhi. Do you feel there’s something you’d like to settle between us, separately or in this discussion? —Michael Z. 00:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Asking for a friend: So how bad does it have to get before it's casting aspersions? Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So it appears there is a rather long and convoluted backstory that led to a mistake that does not amount to a pattern. Action on either score is unlikely here, most certainly the message has been received; we have a productive editor no longer editing. Is it not time to close this thread with no action ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It was inappropriate for SN to make a drive-by allegation at that TP. It was not the place for same. The back-handed comment following the redaction was at least as egregious as that which was redacted - even without its own inaccuracies. As Ostalgia points out though, it is difficult to have a lot of sympathy for Michael. As Ostalgia evidences, there is a pattern of conduct that Michael will personalise discussions, misrepresent statements (by omission), cast aspersions and make pejorative comments. This is occurring in the CT of ARBEE, where there is implicitly a lower tolerance for inappropriate conduct and it certainly does not have a calming effect. What is evident from the OP is that Michael has an expectation of conduct by others not matched by his own. However, this is not a reason to excuse SN's conduct. Two wrongs don't make it right. We have clear policy and guidance on respect an civility. The message has been received? The only message being received is that in practice, WP has a high and inconsistent tolerance for disrespect and incivility. 's question is quite pertinent. What would be an appropriate outcome? A noting per ? I would also suggest a deletion of the disruptive material added by SN and, by necessity, the comments that directly relate to it, since they would no longer have a context. That would be an outcome with some substance. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

My comment was drafted as the thread was archived and didn't create an edit conflict. , as the closer, deal with this in the way you think best, including a revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)