Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1128

Sarah SchneiderCH
Hello, there is much to cover in this so I will try to be concise and summarize the issues into main points. The user Sarah SchneiderCH seems to be pushing an agenda both in regards to the etiquette of Wikipedia and the encyclopedic factor of it. (WP:NOTHERE)

1. Behavior towards other users:

Regarding edit disputes and talk pages users are expected to argue based on contributions not make personal attacks. However, Sarah SchneiderCH does the exact opposite basing their arguments on personal attacks (WP:PA).

For example, my edits on the dabke page are wrong not because of any reason regarding the contributions themselves but because I am "a person belonging to a certain national thought, this is evident from his name and contributions (User Red Phoenician)...and the Lebanese Maronite with phoenicianism ideology)"

Again, this behavior is exhibited where Sarah SchneiderCH, instead of arguing based on contributions, profoundly declares that "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs."...when in reality neither of the aforementioned users were of Aramean Syriac descent...with one of them coming from a Muslim family as they pointed out themselves on the same talk page.

Yet again, Sarah SchneiderCH tried this on me by comparing a simple edit dispute to the Lebanese civil war. I assume this was a failed attempt at baiting an emotional reaction out of me. Regardless, it is still insensitive to make such a remark and takes the violation of not "treating editing as a battleground" to a new level.

These remarks (as well as their confusion between Armenian and Aramean )  make me suspicious of Sarah SchneiderCH's own claim of being a Maronite Lebanese/Palestinian (which I notice they have now removed under the claim "sharing the roots often leads to issues with fanatical individuals. When faced with a deadlock, these individuals resort to attacking or using them") and makes me question the credibility of said claims as a possible disguise created in order to get closer to certain topics and to be able to bully and harass other users of Levantine or similar background.

2. Removal of sourced information

Multiple times Sarah SchneiderCH has removed reliable and sourced information by simply slapping the term "original research" on it, and replacing scholarly sources they do not agree with with wordpress blogs. I do not know how to describe this other than vandalism. It seems countless pages related to non-Arab or indigenous peoples in the Middle East/North Africa have been edited by Sarah SchneiderCH in order to remove sourced genetic or cultural information. This is obvious POV-pushing and an attempt at turning everything MENA related Arab, erasing other ethnicities such as Maronite, Berber, Assyrian, etc.

3. Other issues

Despite the issues above, both myself and others have tried to communicate with Sarah SchneiderCH, , , , but our attempts seem to be fruitless as Sarah SchneiderCH seems either unable or unwilling to take our advice in regards to Wikipedia etiquette and POV-pushing. It became apparent to me that Sarah SchneiderCH was just being disruptive and nothing more when they ignored my responses to them on two talk pages,. At first I had assumed that they had simply conceded as this is how many talk pages reach a resolution as they had not replied to me and were editing daily for 4 days straight without giving me a response. Thus, I decided to edit the pages and only then did Sarah SchneiderCH instantly revert and reply to me. (WP:GAME)

I believe that I have exhausted all of my available resources on the matter. I am asking an administrator to please take a look at this situation to help avoid any more pages from being damaged this way and to avoid Wikipedia from becoming a hate speech platform. Red Phoenician (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, yes, this is a problem. There is POV-pushing and disruptive editing here. I am unsure how someone with 4000+ edits can remove a scholarly sourced article claiming that it's OR (or as she says, "original search"), but even more concerning is replacing a good piece of writing with this badly sourced (and almost certainly copy-pasted) nonsense .  I think we would wait for a response from the editor concerned, but given the sequence of events in the OPs Paragraph 3 I suspect we may be waiting for a while. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although to be honest, given this re-adding of a BLP violation (admins only, I rev-deleted it), I suggest there's a bigger problem here. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe he has filed a complaint that his motive appears to be removing me from Wikipedia, thereby allowing him to act freely in the future. The editor made numerous attempts to emphasize the Phoenician aspect, yet my response to him in a parallel manner seemed to have provoked his anger, either here or there. In the article, Dabke was adamant about emphasizing the Phoenician aspect and took it upon himself to promote this viewpoint through a specific website. Furthermore, he introduced additional statements that were not originally mentioned on the same site, seemingly drawing personal conclusions. In the article about Lebanon, there were attempts to obfuscate the truth by presenting sources that do not confirm the claims, thereby falsifying the figures .a b c
 * Sarah, Red Phoenician can no more get you removed from Wikipedia than anybody else. Only you can remove yourself - by editing so tendentiously as to require blocking you to allow orderly editing and management of our articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count) 17:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1 Removing negationism, quoted source does not include said word and here Not all Protestants are Evangelical. He sees things from his perspective Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * About (original search"), Elkamel, Sarra et al. (2021) wrote that: "Considering Tunisian populations as a whole, the majority part of their paternal haplogroups are of autochthonous Berber origin (71.67%) and in the same source (The Arabs from Kairouan revealed 73.47% of E-M81 and close affinities with Berber groups and in the Arabs from Kairouan clearly prevailed a genetic male background of Berber ancestry "Both are not mentioned in the article). I have reviewed the article and attempted to locate similar sources, but, I was unable to find any. There are many sources indicating the genetic diversity of Tunisians. Like in the same article (Tunisians mainly carry E1b1 haplogroup (55%) and J1 haplogroup (34.2%)) so most studies found that Tunisians are distributed between two major genes. Regarding the site, it has a lot of failures, for example here  Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites BUT the source retracted these claims.
 * Regarding the badly sourced nonsense. yes, I did not notice that they were from Bloggers and the editor removed it and I did nothing because he was right about it.
 * Regarding the last question that I have nothing to do with directly, I was just accomplishing my tasks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlankPage/RTRC I saw that a piece of content was deleted, so I undoed it.

While I acknowledge that I may have made errors, it is important to clarify that these mistakes should not lead to accusations of vandalizing Wikipedia, as has been claimed. I intended to initiate a discussion regarding the removal of the original search on the discussion page, but I had not yet done so. I had planned to address this matter soon and as for Dabke, I reverted back and provided an explanation of my actions on the page. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you did have something to do with restoring an unsourced attack on a living person. If you revert a deletion of content, you are taking responsibility for that content, and a quick scan of what you were restoring should have told a newbie editor straight away that it should not have been restored, let alone someone with 4000+ edits.  If you're not doing that, you shouldn't be editing at all per WP:CIR. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Attar: I sadly experienced the negative behavior of the reported editor. Sarah goes straight to attack others and accuses them of what she herself do. In her first contribution to the talk page of the article Syrians, she wrote: "Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of the content in the article was contributed by two individuals who belong to the Arabic-speaking Christian communities, specifically the Arameans-Syriacs." |here. She then continued to explain that based on this ethnic or religious background, the editors (me and another guy) have no integrity and our edits are POV pushing. I am not Christian, nor Aramean, nor Syriac. I then decided to use her logic against her but not in the same malicious way. I told her to edit the page of the Lebanese People to reflect their Arab identity (which is what she was demanding for the page "Syrians") which made her upset, telling me: "You should not talk to me on the basis that I have Lebanese roots or start comparing this and that" |here. So, she doesn't like it if her "roots" were used against her, but she has no problem doing it herself.

Secondly: aside from her manners and constant assumption of bad will, she has an ideological purpose. She declared that she is on a mission: "I am working on neutralizing articles that refer to different ethnic and cultural groups, with a focus on avoiding conflating historical civilizations with contemporary societies" |here. However, looking into her edits, it is mostly about Arabs and their identity. So, the mission is really pushing ethnic ideologies, which will be explained below.

Thirdly: she vandalized the Syrians page by deleting sourced material, re-writing the lead which has a consensus (see here for the consensus on the lead), and attempting to ignore reliable sources for the sake of her own conventions. Her argument was that "Syrian" is a nationality and therefore the article should discuss all ethnic groups of Syria. After I wrote a long sourced paragraph showing that "Syrian" is synonymous with the Arabic speakers of Syria, and therefore, according to academic consensus, the scope of the article should be about the Arabic speakers, she continued to revert to her preferred lead which is against the sources |here.

She finds important to "summarize". By which she means deleting, without consensus, chunks of sourced text that she doesnt like which contributes to the context of the article simply because she consider the mentioning of the word Aramean, the language spoken in Syria before the Islamic conquest, to be a clear attempt to push ideological POV that denies the Arab character of Syrians (which is her main aim: deleting any reference to anything aside from Arab). |see here, and especially her edit summary.

Sarah is just being disruptive and does not like it that she couldn't have it her way (because she did not have research and reliable sources on her side). Even after all her "concerns" were addressed, she refused to end the discussion, telling me that there is still a lot to be clarified! so vague!!. I asked her: what... and this was like 5 days ago and she hasn't reply yet. |Here

Sarah is no experienced editor. She hasent added any material that improved wiki articles. She mainly argue, attack, "investigate" and revert endlessly (hoping to become an admin I think one day). She is not able to judge the accuracy or reliability of sources. She attacks, vandalize and think her opinions more important than reliable sources. She needs to learn Wiki etiquette (and yes, I was as rude as her after reading her accusations, but I stick to reliability and integrity and none of my edits can be shown to be vandalism or POV pushing), and not edit articles without having reliable sources and achieving consensus on the talk pages first.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Respond to Black Kite I made a mistake by admitting this, and it was a result of my inattention. I noticed the content was deleted, but I vow that this will be my last mistake, and I will be more careful in the future.

. Concerning Attar, I did not finish the conversation and found myself in an endless controversy. I was waiting for other editors to join the discussion. I believe there has been an exploitation of my situation. However, the administrators are present, and I trust them completely. They are aware that I haven't made any changes to the Syrian article without prior discussion. Even those I have been discussing with here have agreed on the proposed changes. The situation has escalated beyond mere sabotage or any other issue. It has become highly personalm. I have been an editor for over six years, even before officially registering on Wikipedia. Suddenly, I find myself entangled in conflicts related to ethnicities and Neo-Shu'ubiyya Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't OK. In edit summaries and article talk pages, focus on the content, not the contributor.  If you do need to talk about a contributor, we have appropriate places to do that.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledge that my previous statement was inappropriate, and I should have refrained from using such language. This incident can serve as a valuable lesson for me, reminding me to respect boundaries in the future. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a clear, unequivocal and totally satisfactory response. I propose that we close this without further action.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, in response to Sarah SchneiderCH's claims that I am seeing things from my perspective in these two cases  I would first ask an admin to look at the source material for the quote in question . I have already tried to explain multiple times  that the word Arab cannot be added into the quoted text because the source itself does not use this word. Secondly, I do not understand how all Protestants not being Evangelical is a form of my perspective in any way. Just because the source is the "evangelical-times" this does not equate to all the groups being evangelical as the source itself states "There are an estimated 20,000 Protestants in Lebanon. These comprise Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Church of God, Nazarene, Brethren and Charismatics." . There is also the issue of them still claiming that the National Library of Medicine is not a reliable source.
 * I cannot tell for certain if these repeated complaints are a result of incompetence or stubbornness. If they are a result of incompetence (which could be the case as Sarah SchneiderCH seems to have some trouble with the English language as shown in edits and talk page discussions pointed out earlier by both me and Black Kite, possibly meaning Sarah SchneiderCH quite literally does not understand what they are doing wrong) then they are not fit to edit on grounds of WP:COMPETENCE. However, if the issue is just stubbornness then not only is Sarah SchneiderCH being disruptive by going against sourced material they are just being problematic by ignoring my multiple attempts at trying to explain these issues to them and still trying to present them in front of administrators. (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)
 * I do not believe that Sarah SchneiderCH is being genuine in their apology and is only trying to save face in front of the admins as firstly above this text they accused Attar-Aram syria and myself of the derogatory label of being Neo-Shu'ubiyyaists. This is derogatory on both political and ethnic levels to both of us as it is equivalent to accusing us of being "Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons." (WP:NPA) which is yet another violation of a personal attack. Secondly, Sarah SchneiderCH does not seem to understand how they are in the wrong as yet again they are trying to pull WP:GAME on me here by accusing me of being the one who was actually ignoring them the entire time. I find this ironic as we had already been conversing back and forth on the talk page without mentioning one another and if you look at the very beginning of that particular dispute you can see it started with Sarah SchneiderCH themselves backtalking me and my contributions without mentioning me to allow me to respond. As Attar-Aram syria puts it "Sarah goes straight to attack others and accuses them of what she herself do." Also, the fact that Sarah SchneiderCH instantly saw my edit but not my reply on the talk page is contradictory as it would have showed up on their watchlist.
 * At this point I believe a topic ban would best remedy the situation as Sarah SchneiderCH seems unable to control their personal hatred towards users of ethnic Levantine descent, which obviously affects pages related to such topics. However, as personal attacks in general are just wrong and with Black Kite pointing out that Sarah SchneiderCH's editing issues go beyond a specific topic (with Sarah SchneiderCH's themselves saying that "I have been an editor for over six years, even before officially registering on Wikipedia.", possibly meaning years of countless damage to pages and personal attacks against users who were possibly too hurt or frightened to object to this) a total ban may be necessary in order to avoid Wikipedia from going through a similar ordeal all over again in the future. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is that I don't oppose your effort to provide a more reliable source regarding ethnicities in Lebanon. However, I request that you present the proportions as mentioned on the website, without excluding any ethnic group. According to the CIA source, Armenians constitute 4% of Lebanon's population, which may have led to their exclusion along with other groups. Since there is objection and insistence on change, removing the current percentage could potentially resolve the problem, considering the objection at hand.
 * Regarding the reliability of the source, it does not mention Dabke at all, but instead focuses on the dance known as Phoenicia from Cyprus. Furthermore, the user introduced unrelated words into the discussion. If the issue pertains to including an image, it should be done in a manner that doesn't mislead the reader into perceiving Dabke as a Cypriot or Phoenician dance. This is particularly important as both the image and the source explicitly discuss the Phoenician dance, not Dabke. The image can be put up, e.g. (Images discovered in Cyprus depict the Phoenicians engaging in a circular dance). However, I fail to observe any connection between Dabke and the source claiming it to be a Phoenician dance rather than a Levantine one.
 * Attar, I believe the conversation exists, and the administrators have reviewed it, though I removed it. The reasons were explained, and I provided prior notification on the discussion page, stating that it was copied verbatim from a Wikipedia article. I noticed your objection, claiming that you had written it. Consequently, I refrained from restoring it. However, this doesn't imply that I am defending myself to the extent that you accuse me of playing the victim.
 * I hope that the matter between me and the Red Phoenician will finally be resolved through the intervention of administrators or editors in these two articles, bringing the dispute to a close. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, this seems to be an attempt at moving the goalposts. I had not brought up the issues of the population percentage or the dabke talk page but rather was discussing the two issues that you had called me out on related to the quoted text from "Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East" and the Protestant≠Evangelical dispute. It seems Sarah SchneiderCH is trying to derail the matter at hand but regardless I will respond to these issues to make a point that Sarah SchneiderCH has a habit of repeating this behavior as it has now been the 4th or 5th time they have ignored these points and tried to change the subject. (Again IDIDNTHEARTHAT) All of the modern numbers on Lebanon's population are estimates as there has been no official census since 1932 and it is possible that the Armenian percentage has become non-negligible because of the recent influx of Syrian refugees which is why it is important to show a distinction between Lebanese, Syrians, and Palestinians, otherwise it is reductive of the situation. As for the issue of the dabke I have already responded to the issues you are now presenting in the talk page and secondly it does not make sense that you are now advocating for the images to be added under this caption as they were already up before you removed them as "Depictions of dancing Phoenicians from Cyprus." It seems that you are now supporting the sources which you were so adamant on removing until the administrators called you out for it simply to save face in front of them. Also, Phoenicians are part of the broader Levantine culture unless you are arguing against this too.
 * At this point it should be more than obvious that Sarah SchneiderCH is just going to continue a cycle of removing/ignoring sourced information or issues brought up, personally attacking other users, and then the playing victim. It seems from Sarah SchneiderCH's last sentence that they have taken the matter as a personal issue between me and them alone when the problem is not that at all. They are trying to antagonize me as the one behind this issue when they are the one who consistently makes personal attacks against both me and several unrelated users as already shown above and even in this talk page as I have mentioned earlier by labeling me and Attar-Aram syria as Neo-Shu'ubiyyaists.
 * As Attar-Aram syria pointed out "She rarely produce any reliable sources but expect other editors to keep entertaining her opinions and endless discussions." It is likely Sarah SchneiderCH will continue to stall and move the goalposts around for as long as possible, as they have already done in multiple talk pages they are involved in,, , , , until an administrator arbitrates the issue. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Further comments by Attar: Im afraid Sarah is not sincere. She still think of herself as a victim by calling me and other editors Neo-Shu'ubiyyis, then just hours later claiming that she learned her lesson?! Also, Sarah, in her response to me, on my first batch of comments, claimed, falsely, that she "haven't made any changes to the Syrian article without prior discussion. Even those I have been discussing with here have agreed on the proposed changes". This is outright lying. She did not have any consensus when she removed 72,129 bytes of sourced text and arbitrarily re-wrote the consensus based lead |here. This is why I reverted her. |here. Sarah's problem is not only her attitude to other editors but her editing itself. She has no respect for consensus building and use the talk pages to prolong discussions till other editors get fed up and leave so that she can have her preferred version. She rarely produce any reliable sources but expect other editors to keep entertaining her opinions and endless discussions. She needs to commit herself to wiki rules of consensus and reliability, not only respect her fellow editors. She is removing sourced material and claiming that they cant be used until everyone agree (|here in the discussion about the Levantine dance called Dabke). However, Wikipedia is not a democracy of votes. Consensus is based on reliable sources, which she has failed to produce. Im not sure her apology regarding her usage of Red Phoenician's roots will resolve any of the issues and conflicts she is causing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that Sarah knows no boundaries when it comes to removing sourced content that she dislikes without a discussion or rationalization. Example: she here eradicated the genetics section in the Tunisians page, deleting many sources, |with 0 explanation on the talk page. She also write misleading summaries, |such as here where she again tried to complete the eradication of the genetics section by claiming she was removing original research which turned to be a legitimate academic article. I have already indicated with evidence (diffs) how she did the same in the article of Syrians.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed those diffs and I don't see anything that would warrant sysop intervention. We're writing an encyclopaedia -- so we have to be succinct as well as accurate.  This does mean removing text, and sometimes it can include removing sources.  Making articles more concise is a good thing.  There's been a difference of opinion about how best to do that, which is normal editing, not problematic behaviour.  The diffs you show would be problematic if repeated after you reverted them, but by themselves, they look fine to me.Also, please would those of you complaining about this editor reflect on that word, "succinct", and its applications to AN/I reports?  Encyclopaedists have to be able to say things briefly.  Concision as well as completeness.  This thread could have been a quarter of its current length.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not writing an encyclopedia in the talk page. There is a disruptive behavior that needs to be adequately explained. As for the diffs, your argument would be logical if those edits werent part of POV pushing. Sarah is removing anything that doesnt suit her narrative. Hence, all non-Arab origins of nations that speak Arabic are being removed. This can be seen in the article "Syrians" (you have the diff in my preceding comment) where Sarah kept a long paragraph proving that Arabs inhabited Syria way before the conquest but kept 3 lines of the Arabization section. Plus, even if you assume good faith, how can you justify deleting sourced material with a summary: original research (diff in the above comment), which turned to be a legitimate academic study. I prefer to leave this to the admins. Hopefully was this succinct enough.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not complaining about the editor, only their contributions. I tried to explain earlier that a tactic they use is to clutter up talk pages to stall/derail and was simply responding to their various unrelated statements to prove a point. My issue is that the insult of Neo-Shu'ubiyyaist is being overlooked. "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as...blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored." (PA) Red Phoenician (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious WP:NOTHERE behavior
User:분홍분홍 토야 Obviously meaningless editorial behavior, including making obviously inappropriate changes to music entries. This user was blocked indefinitely by jawiki and zhwiki because of WP:NOTHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumikas Sagisavas (talk • contribs)


 * One edit today, unreverted. Sporadic edits over the last few months, all also unreverted. No evidence of attempting to explain to the editor in question what, if any, problem there is with their edits. Block records on other projects are generally immaterial here. — Trey Maturin™ 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fumikas Sagisavas Just a headup, they are blocked on Japanese Wikipedia as sockpuppet, not WP:NOTHERE. -Lemonaka‎  02:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fumikas Sagisavas BTW, your signature is really against wp:sign and WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, this signature has nothing in relation with your username and trying to impersonate others is unacceptable. -Lemonaka‎  02:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And the talk page link is almost blank for me. And I thought my previous signature had bad contrast...  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @LilianaUwU Off topic, that's why I always like simple signatures. -Lemonaka‎  02:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

SPI needed for harasser
Can someone make the SPI investigation for Gondolabúrguer and Trakking? They are either cozy working together as meat puppets or are sock puppetsSem Lula (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The above account is brand-spanking new, and the above is their first edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: We know who this trickster is. They unmasked themselves in a comment below: "calling me a militant woman" – in other words, this is a fake account created by @Ertrinken in order to seem neutral or make it seem like there are several users on her side.
 * This user reverted an edit using the far-leftist battle cry "sai minion," which is an ideological and activistic way of using Wikpedia. And today my talk page was vandalized by an anonymous user writing this same far-leftist phrase.
 * It seems to be @Ertrinken who should be investigated here. This is the most suspect user I have come across on my peaceful time on Wikipedia. Trakking (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What? I don't even know who you are... Ertrinken (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr Trakking, in your userpage, you say you are sweddish. How do you know so much about Brazilian politcs? My phrase isn't far leftist at all Ertrinken (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What, Trakking is a trusted user, can you give us some evidence? -Lemonaka‎  07:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I was the admin that blocked Gondolabúrguer and I don't see a link between the accounts at all. Could you explain why you think this to be the case? Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trakker I believe they're referring to this CiphriusKane (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is completely lacking in anything even approaching evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They edit the same pages, voice the same opinions and all of the suddenly, Gondolaburguer tags Trakking in a discussion about calling me a militant woman. Trakking does the same sort of things Gondolaburguer got blocks for. Sem Lula (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see the evidence. Which pages?  Which opinions?  Provide article names and diffs, please. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 25 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) Sem Lula (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:망고소녀
The editor 망고소녀 appears to be a WP:CIR problem. Their talk page, User talk:망고소녀, contains all the necessary information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh no, not again. — Trey Maturin™ 14:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It really ever stopped. They went right from disruptive editing about the children of Martin Bormann to disruptive editing about the children and dates of Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf Höss, Heinrich Himmler, and Baldur von Schirach, (among others).  They seem to have a "thing" about the children of Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have extended 망고소녀's block to a sitewide indef for disruptive editing, including persistent edit warring, inappropriate logged-out editing, and addition of poorly-sourced material. The previous partial block from Martin Bormann has only caused the disruption to spread to more articles. DanCherek (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Shomada unduly promoting specific author, likely WP:COI


This concerns many articles over multiple periods. Every single edit I've seen from them has been adding citations exclusively to a specific author, Hamada Hagras, who as far as I can tell is not particularly notable or well-cited. Very likely WP:COI or WP:SELFPROMOTE.

Please note that the user often stops editing for a period, but then returns to do more of the same. I think this deserves an indef block, unless they clearly commit to stop doing this. R Prazeres (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In their latest edits, they've been inserting unnecessary citations to Hagras (either in English or Arabic) into existing material, and literally nothing else. E.g.:, , , and most recently and.
 * In other cases they introduced undue prominence to Hagras in the body of the article or added disproportionately long quotes from his work . In at least one of these cases, they also removed templates and other material without reason.
 * They also previously tried to create an article about Hamada Hagras, which was promptly deleted by this AfD. They then tried to re-create it a few months later, before it was speedy-deleted (see messages here).
 * Prior to this year's activity, they were active in 2019 and 2020; I did some spot checks and found that they were doing the same thing back then (tons of examples like, , , etc).
 * They previously (in 2020) received a warning on their talk page about this behaviour here and another about conflicts of interest here. I tried to warn them again here and here. Apart from deleting my first message, they haven't responded and have continued these edits (per the examples above).


 * PS: I previously reported this to WP:COIN (here), but it got no response, so I'm assuming this venue is more appropriate. R Prazeres (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that's problematic as they only seem to be here to add references to Hagras. Due to the repeated failure to communicate and disclose their COI, I have blocked them. SmartSE (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

24.52.19.183
The user of this IP seems to have engaged in continued disruptive editing since September 2021, and has continued today with. The IP has been blocked twice before. See also edit. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 05:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked 2 years. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

revoke 66.250.190.20 TPA
they have been disrupting their own talk page, please revoke TPA. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 16:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Although their edits to their talk page can easily be perceived as personal attacks, editors can remove any content on their talk pages if they feel the need to do so. I've given them a warning for now, if the problem continues, their TPA will likely be revoked. Din  oz1  (chat?) 17:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * TPA revoked, one edit rev/deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

IP making legal threats
After being warned in user talk, IP 156.255.1.59 replied with legal threats. For now I have warn the user about making legal threats in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'mOnFire (talk • contribs)
 * I initially blocked for NLT, but then I noticed the IP is a webhost, and blocked for a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

IP User should be blocked
The user User talk:216.179.119.25 should be blocked, they keep repeating their disruptive editing in various articles. WP:NOTHERE User101FrOas (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The have not edited since their most recent warning, and have only two edits in the past 3 months. They are unlikely to be blocked if they heed the warnings that were given, and have stopped being disruptive, as it appears they have.  -- Jayron 32 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok User101FrOas (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If they repeat their actions, I recommend you report on WP:AIV. Din  oz1  (chat?) (he/him) 18:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, civility, ownership, edit warring
Hello! I realize, for the reasons I discuss here, that this may very well boomerang on me, and I'm happy to discuss that, but I'd like to discuss ongoing issues I've had with User:Specifico.

For background: and I very much disagreed about a NPOV issue concerning a potential discussion of Carroll v. Trump at Donald Trump. As I've acknowledged on multiple occassions, I got too heated in that discussion and stepped into WP:BLUDGEONING territory—I stepped back from that section, though when a new section was started discussing a related proposal, I did participate there. One thing that repeatedly made me frustrated during the discussion was that SPECIFICO would accuse me of violating Wikipedia policy and then never respond when I asked him to elaborate as to how. This happened on three separate occasions.

I also requested an interaction break from SPECIFICO, which pretty quickly fell apart—he "thanked" me for an edit soon after replying to my request for an interaction break, and, later, after he reverted me, I pinged him in the resulting talk page section to discuss the reversion. After that revert, I also—very explicitly—tried to extend an olive branch. I said: By the way—since you did revert (hence the ping), I'd, of course, be more than happy to have you participate in the most recent discussion section—even if your take is that the current version is the best and most superior version! (I fully acknowledge that sometimes "awkward" constructions are a personal thing, and if I read something as being a bit awkward and everyone else disagrees—I'm wrong!)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (In case it wasn't obvious, this is a olive branch! I genuinely think that we would probably agree on 99% of issues, and the fact that we're having a contentious discussion about the 1% shouldn't get in the way of that.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s how SPECIFICO responded to that message:

I subsequently made quite a few edits to the Trump article. Most of those edits were extremely uncontroversial—objective grammar fixes. ‘’Very’’ occasionally, it’d be a bit more subjective—a language alteration here and there; reordering a sentence, changing present-perfect tense to past tense, etc. SPECIFICO reverted quite a few of these edits, offering little explanation. On one of those reverts, I recognized that the change I was proposing was a very subjective preference, and I did not start a subsequent discussion. But on others, I was pretty confused. The edits I was making seemed like fairly unequivocal improvements—even if an editor disagreed with ‘’part’’ of them, wholesale reverts without follow ups made little sense. As a result of these reverts, I started new sections on the talk page to discuss the changes. I pinged SPECIFICO in these sections, though he never responded to me. Here’s each of the discussions:


 * Talk:Donald_Trump: Made after.
 * Reason offered for revert: Completely changes the meaning of this text and is not an improvement
 * Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
 * Result? My edit was reinserted after another edit said: Edit was completely justified. Does not change the content or tone of the text, and is appropriately past tense, as all Wikipedia articles about past events (e.g. when Trump was president) are supposed to be.
 * Talk:Donald_Trump: Made after this revert.
 * Reason offered: "not better".
 * Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
 * Result? Reinserted by another editor. "Yes, I also cannot find any evidence in sources for that claim (folded into investigation, not ended) either. I'm going to restore these changes as supported by sourcing, and appropriately removing unsourced material...."
 * Talk:Donald_Trump: Made after this revert.
 * Reason offered: Not an imrovment. Wording and punctuation shapes the meaning and narratives of article text, and such edits should not be marked "minor". This one was much discussed in the past and the change was not an improvement.
 * Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? Eventually, yes, before then discussing with just one user on your talk page.
 * Result? Two other editors agreed that the text as it stood in the article was not clear and needed editing. You eventually responded to disagree with all of the edits the three of us had made. SPECIFICO and one of the editors discussed changes on SPECIFICO's personal talk page, explicitly in order to avoid discussing changes on the article talk page (even though only four users were in that discussion).

SPECIFICO has now told me to stop editing the Trump page multiple times. He's reverted me and accused me of violating policies—both, I think, baselessly, but it's hard to say because he hasn't responded when asked. It's been very difficult to get anything done on the Trump page because of the tone SPECIFICO has set.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

See these reverts which were later over-ruled by consensus, for example:  (right about the source but not the content) etc etc. struck 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)because it's an example where consensus hasn't yet been established Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form - Everything (with perhaps only the exception of the ASPERSIONS comment) in my comment is based upon formal or informal warnings to SPECIFICO from admins. The ASPERSIONS comments are from editors across the spectrum, who SPECIFICO gets into minor disagreements with. Again, over 1 revert in my and other cases! That's the issue that brought me here, someone who templates regulars in an attempt to dissuade them from contributing. SPECIFICO could have said "hey just an FYI, there's a BRD requirement on that page and you should be careful". or "hey that's a really contentious area, are you sure you want to delve into it?" But instead they just drop an accusation of edit warring and go from there. That's also very poor form.Here, in order, is a list of those warnings/sanctions that I could find which match this behavioral pattern:
 * Suggest boomerang Andre🚐 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that! I would ask that, assuming there's a boomberang, someone removes the GA nomination for Death of Caylee Anthony and possibly Murder of Laci Peterson—on the former, I've been the only main editor for some time; on the latter, there's been another editor, but I'm not sure if that editor wants to go through the GA process. Having reviewed myself, I don't want to waste a reviewer's time. Thanks!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gonna have to agree. I'm surprised we even ended up here. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm happy to accept the consensus and retire. I would suggest that someone eventually takes a look at the OWNERSHIP issues on that page, because I won't be the last editor SPECIFICO tries to intimidate off the page.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that OP should be removed from the project, as they seem like a good editor. I would support an IBAN, and if we really think Jerome's conduct at Donald Trump is problematic, a page ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think, aside from any issues with JFD, this situation with SPECIFICO is indeed an issue. I can see how interactions with SPECIFICO led to this entire situation and JFD (rightly, unfortunately) getting a 3 month pban. The issue is this: SPECIFICO has been warned before by both myself and others ( and this gem: SPECIFICO's constant personal attacks and aspersions against other users (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])—to say nothing of her systematic POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources—would surely have resulted in an indefinite site ban years ago if she shared the politics of (insert user). ) We have warned SPECIFICO repeatedly about accusing others of breaking policy without evidence, and it now seems clear, this user has a pattern of doing so as part of attempts to discourage users from contributing to articles that (it seems) SPECIFICO doesn't want to change.
 * They provide edit warring warnings to users after 1 revert, without engaging (or only minimally engaging) on the article talk page (see above diffs). They knee-jerk revert to their preferred version, in effect acting as a "filter" on articles until they are overruled on talk page by a consensus of others.
 * SPECIFICO has also engaged in numerous instances of critiquing and commenting on other editors' behavior on article talk pages (and has been warned about it at AE: ).
 * This user (SPECIFICO) also has a history of hounding/harassing editors they disagree with politically/philosophically: including an anti-bludgeoning sanction and specific campaigns/efforts to punish other users repeatedly
 * Of particular note: (a situation in which SPECIFICO narrowly avoided a site-ban, on the principle that they should be able to show productive editing without these disputes/harassments): the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion and Please take great care in reading all other warnings provided in the close. You were, indeed, extremely close to a site ban, and this should be a wakeup call
 * I say all of these things, despite being (ideologically) extremely well-aligned with SPECIFICO, given their user and talk pages. But we cannot tolerate this sort of thing from anyone, even (especially) those we fervently agree with.Why, as a project, are we putting up with all of this? SPECIFICO appears accustomed to employing the gears of Wikipedia to remove disagreement, enforce their preferred version of articles, and remove ideological "opponents", all of which creates a battleground mentality on the pages they frequent. This is exactly the environment which led JFD to break the BRD requirement (an otherwise very productive user, who has created numerous BRD discussions on the DJT talk after reverts from SPECIFICO, in which SPECIFICO ignores any and all actual discussion). I'm not sure what benefit this behavior provides to the project. I would recommend an AMPOL TBAN for SPECIFICO, if not an outright site ban given the previous warnings re: this behavioral pattern. Edit: 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) clarified with inserted text to finish hanging clause.  —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I'm surprised there was a boomerang discussion here with something that bad. I would support a topic ban or siteban of SPECIFICO at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think part of it is that it has been a long time since some of this disputes flared up (2014, 2017, and 2018). But not much appears to have actually changed about their behavior (particularly ownership and chasing away other editors). They were TBAN'd from a similar dispute involving the Joe Biden page in 2020: . And Julian Assange: (also in 2020). They were also very close to sanctions for simiar knee-jerk reverts at Donald Trump in 2018:  As far as I can tell, they have received warnings or short TBANs for a littany of similar situations. I can count nearly 20 similar instances over the years. These are the patterns I would like SPECIFICO to reconsider, and those which I think are disrupting the project. Bans are preventative, not punitive, and so a TBAN for this user is probably more than sufficient. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , you reviewed all of Shibbolethink's links in 6 minutes? If you look more deeply at Shibbolethink's evidence, most of it falls apart.  The claims of "warnings" are from Shibbolethink and 2 very partisan editors; the quote in green at the top was due to a misunderstanding; the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less, and that generally follows BRD anyway unless taken to the extreme; the diff claiming to describe commenting on other editors was a perfectly reasonable comment about the content of someone's BLP-violating comments; the last two bullets, and the quote in green at the bottom, are from 2014.
 * I don't want to be harsh, but WP is also damaged by (a) someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor, and (b) drive-by editors taking such claims at face value and jumping to immediately supporting a siteban. Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form, but it happens a lot here. And I'd recommend taking everything said at ANI with a grain of salt unless you know about it yourself, or research the claims made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for notifying me of that. It would appear that most of the talk page warnings are from the same people. And, upon further examination, those diffs are not great evidence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less


 * "Simply put, there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours as a standard admin action. Blocks serve two purposes, to stop disruption now and/or to act as a deterrent to undesirable behavior in the future. This block is obviously for the latter rather than the former. To be clear, SPECIFICO's final revert was against policy as breaking the Consensus Required restriction on the page. There was no BLP or other exemption under 3RRNO that could have applied, it was simply editorial preference. I don't think he is lying, but I do think he understood there was risk to the path he chose, and risks often have consequences. In this case, a block. While I'm quite sure this sanction is sure to displease everyone, and perhaps in equal measure but for different reasons, it was done after careful and long consideration." 10 August 2022


 * "SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally." 25 May 2022


 * I-ban after this whole thing . 26 December 2020


 * "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from Julian Assange for a period of 2 weeks per this AE request." 5 November 2020


 * "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later." 17 October 2020


 * "You are topic banned from editing material related to sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden for 1 week (until 20 May 2020)."


 * "SPECIFICO is given a logged warning as follows: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions" 9 April 2020


 * "SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is placed under the Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions described at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions for a duration of 1 year." 13 August 2018


 * "No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward." 15 June 2018


 * "While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area, knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus.", "That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed."  3 June 2018
 * "SPECIFICO is reminded of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warned that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions." 20 May 2018


 * 1-way I-ban . 14 September 2014


 * TBAN from Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute . 22 April 2014

Oh I'm sorry, did I include that diff as an example of SPECIFICO reverting only until consensus is established (in effect, acting as a filter) ? That was my mistake, I misunderstood your concern, I will strike it. But I stand by the rest of the diffs in that claim. SPECIFICO was, until today, knee-jerk reverting things at the article from multiple users. That's why I said they were acting with OWNERSHIP tendencies. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of those, only the last two are from 2014, the rest are much more recent. The majority of these warnings/sanctions are from the last 3 years.I found all of these just by looking today. Before the recent few days, I have never had any prolonged interactions with SPECIFICO to the best of my knowledge. I'm not here to settle any old scores or eliminate an opponent. Truthfully, I often, in my heart of hearts when I'm staring up at the ceiling all by my lonesome at night, think Wikipedia needs more editors who agree with WP:LUNATICS. So I would dispute your characterization of myself as someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor. I even agree with SPECIFICO on many of the disputes on that page! I am here only because I think there should be an understanding of everyone at this discussion that JFD's breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time, and I think the above shows SPECIFICO is heavily contributing to it.Personally, I also think WP:AE is a much better venue for things like this, and would never have come here in the first place if JFD hadn't done so first. But I will also say, the above pattern of 9+ AE threads about this user ending in a warning or a short term sanction, shows that that process may be failing the project in the case of this particular user.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those reverts were fine.
 * Further, this diff you offer is SPECIFICO reverting insertion of Trump as the oldest president thus far to take office, with an edit summary saying that it was "somewhat trivial" and sourced to WP:FORBESCON. It's been discussed plenty on the talk page over several years, and obviously needs consensus for inclusion. You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive? On the contrary, she's doing great work on that page. She and I have butted heads before, and she was perfectly dignified about it; didn't bludgeon, didn't hold a grudge. I wish more editors were like that (and many are, and I'm grateful for them all).
 * Also, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out! DFlhb (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive?I reinserted it, providing actual WP:RSes which support the claim and show it is DUE. I also removed some of the inserted content that appeared to take it farther from consensus  And then, when pointed towards that talk page discussion, I happily participated and will accept consensus. As all things should beAlso, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out!Regular users warn other users about the possibility of hitting 3rr or another such issue all the time. In fact, WP:EWN admins often ask you if you've done it. I think this is quite evidently a discrepancy between the colloquial and official meanings of "warning." —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are WP:RS for a billion things we don't mention, and for dozens of things we have affirmative consensus against. You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point. That's not ownership, and neither are the other diffs. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point
 * Speaking as the involved editor, I can only say that it ms incredibly frustrating to be accused of OR multiple times in the same discussion, only for that user to never elaborate on how what you’ve said was OR. It’s incredibly frustrating to extend an olive branch and only be told you just don’t understand Wikipedia policy and you should stay away from a page. It’s incredibly frustrating to, on a contentious page, spell out in the edit summary why you’re making an edit (explaining the grammar issue or the lack to a source), only to have that user revert you with an edit summary that says “not better” or “completely changes the meaning” … and then never follow up, even when you ping them. You keep saying the reverts were fine, can you explain why? Why was the use of the perfect tense called for in the first? Or, if it wasn’t, and you’re saying what was called for was having an unsourced claim (“folded into”)—which, by the way, I spent considerable time trying to source— over a sourced claim, why was the whole edit reverted? Why not just that part? And, same thing with the other edits I’ve mentioned above? And even if you still say “no no the total revert was fine” (whatever fine means in this context), no discussion on the talk page, even after the a ping? Also fine? Is that collaboration? (Ironically SPECIFICO was later upset that I had flooded the talk page with sections asking about her reverts)-— Jerome Frank Disciple 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only edited Talk:Donald Trump occasionally, but even just from having it on my watchlist and reading through the talk page from time to time and occasionally participating a discussion, I have to agree with Shibbolethink's observation that the "breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time" [I removed the rest of my comment because forget it, I'm not getting involved in that.] -sche (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, you know what? My earlier comment included this: "I was about to say that I don't know what the best course of action here is, since warnings haven't worked, ... but the fact that an admin already made that very observation last year ("there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO") makes me think we're at a point where, sadly, we should finally be considering an AMPOL topic ban, to let cooler heads handle things." I dropped that because I wasn't completely confident that all 'smaller' options short of topic-banning Specifico had been exhausted. But I want to highlight just how many attempts (warnings, blocks, discussion here, etc) have been made to get Specifico to improve her own behaviour (listed above) in an effort to avoid having to finally escalate to topic-banning her... so when I see a user below suggesting we don't need to do anything but nudge Specifico again but we should jump straight to broadly-topic banning JFD from all American politics for editing a page too much, especially when JFD has so clearly (even in opening this thread, and on his talk page) been eager to improve in response to feedback... 🙄 (That editor doesn't seem to have read or at least understood the edits in question, since she says JFD made a "self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread", but the edit request is the opposite of self-serving, it's bending over backwards to be compliant and notify anyone who thought his wording was problematic that it had been left in the article after the shuffle and "I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to sneak my preferred version of the article by".) -sche (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, because the BRD thing has now been brought up here ... can someone edit the current version of the article? A day or two ago, after some edits to a sentence, I proposed a compromise version and said, absent the compromise, I would have reverted the changes. That compromise was later undone. I proposed a different compromise, at which point SPECIFICO requested I revert. I reverted to the last stable version of the paragraph that predated the edits (i.e. what I would have reverted to on the first edit if I hadn't thought it prudent to suggest a compromise first). Then, another user undid my revert on BRD grounds. But the thing is ... that meant that my proposed compromise got put back in the article. Before the block, I alerted that user and the talk page (precisely because I was trying to comply with BRD), thinking that someone would revert to either the old version or to SPECIFICO's last version ... but, alas, nothing's happened. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to sneak my preferred version of the article by.

That's all :) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I find Talk:Donald Trump to be an assault on the senses at the moment, there are numerous, numerous multilevel proposals and votes and options and I just give up trying to wade through it all. the OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise, and I don't think SPECIFICO's past issues have any bearing on the frustration that seems to come with trying to deal with all of this. ValarianB (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise While I do understand your frustration with wading through that page, this particular part is entirely due to the interplay of SPECIFICO's reverts and the BRD requirement placed on that page. JFD was making (many quite good, a few less so) edits on that page, and SPECIFICO was reverting many of them with very little explanation. So then JFD goes to the talk, to do BRD as instructed, but then SPECIFICO doesn't participate. So the rest of us talk it out on the page, come to a rough consensus, and move forward. Rinse, repeat, and that's how you get so many multiple talk page sections. I also hate it, but I think it's by virtue of the environment/climate/restrictions on that page. A confluence of factors. Not any one user's fault. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just looking at a cursory check in on the article history, I see JFD making a lot of reverts. I also see them being blocked starting with the section User talk:Jerome Frank Disciple and continuing with not understanding why they were edit warring and I would suggest an AP topic ban might be merited Andre🚐 00:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have I made a lot of reverts? The vast majority of my edits are, certainly, not reverts, and I'm curious about what the comparison for "a lot of reverts" is. Compared to SPECIFICO?
 * Just a side comment that isn't a critique and has nothing to do with nothing, so to speak: One thing that's always been fascinating to me is how differently different people can interpret text. You posted that diff of a comment I made as evidence I didn't understand the block. The admin that responded to that comment took it as evidence that I did understand it, and unblocked me. (For the record, I think I understand, but I realize that's not actually evidence that I do understand. My only point is that it's funny how random the process is. Perhaps a different admin would've been like "you clearly don't understand—now your blocked for a month!".)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PETARD Hello! I realize, for the reasons I discuss here, that this may very well boomerang on me. I bowed out due to the constant snide, unhelpful remarks and ownership showed by Jerome Frank Disciple. Thing is, this editor consistently misconstrues posts by other editors, adding imagined motivations behind other editors edits. Late for me. If someone wants diffs, I'll supply. You can start with Bish's disinvitation at her TP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Facts and figures JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days.
 * If you look at the page statistics, the average rate of the ten most active article editors is less than 1/3 as frequent -- over an average period of roughly 5 years.
 * On the talk page, JFD has edited at a rate roughly 5 times more frequently than the ten most active talk page contributors.
 * There's not much room for error there. And there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc. In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.
 * I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.
 *  SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Notification diff: . I do apologize for the slight delay! I realize about an hour and a half went by before the notification. (First time at ANI.) But I do think it's a bit misleading for you to respond ... seven hours after I notified you and say that I never notified you. I was also working on the post prior to the block (if proof is needed I'm happy to show the Pages file that I created documenting the prior interaction).
 * Is the comment about pace a critique of my edits, which are almost always minor (grammar related)? I do admit I often do minor edits in sections, working on pieces of the article at a time, but I think this is generally a decent practice. For example, if I had made *every* edit that I made to the Trump article in one go, can you honestly say that you wouldn't' have reverted the whole thing? Even among the minor edits I made, you reverted a few times because, I can only assume, you disagreed with a portion of the edit, but other portions of the edit were uncontroversial.
 * No willingness to slow down? I provided multiple examples above of me reacting to your reverts by creating talk page discussions. Isn't that exactly what WP:BRD is for?
 * -- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

These are overall more mild than "stop editing the Trump page". And worded not unkindly. But I think it is a fair summary of the effect these successive comments (and multiple under-explained reverts and personal comments) can have on another user.I overall think this situation will be okay, and based on the input of users so far on this thread, my guess is that no sanctions will occur. However, I would urge all editors to keep in mind some of what SPECIFICO has said in this thread:
 * Comment: This filing seems hinge on the fact that SPECIFICO happens to edit in a lot of controversial American Politics areas, and thus this is probably a (multiple) content dispute more than anything else. (Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided]; instead he should warn the editor and if that doesn't stop disruptive editing they can be brought to ANI or whatever the next step might be.) I, too, would support an AP Topic Ban on the OP, for behavior in this thread and on wiki, not the least of which is making a blatant self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread . For some further perspective, the editor just got blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring on Donald Trump . An AP TBan, broadly construed, would give the OP an opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively and collaboratively and civilly and within WP policies and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided];
 * JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days
 * This comment fails to mention that the average size of those edits is <50 characters, most <20. It seems what SPECIFICO is uncomfortable with in this situation is that the article is changing.
 * there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc.
 * From what independent uninvolved users on this thread have said (not me or anyone involved at that talk page), they seem much more concerned with SPECIFICO's tone than with JFD's. JFD appears to be bending over backwards to be civil here and elsewhere.
 * In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.
 * This is not true and should be retracted. At 15:52 May 17 OP pinged SPECIFICO. At 16:45 May 17, OP posted a templated alert on SPECIFICO's talk.
 * I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.
 * Only one of the editors in this thread has been TBAN'd multiple times from AmPol topics, and it is not OP. People in glass houses should not throw stones.
 * I would overall encourage SPECIFICO to reconsider how they respond to new editors entering an article space, and how aggressively rebuffing that input from multiple editors can create a hostile battleground-like space, which doubtlessly will come back to bite any and all users involved. The goal of this project is not "who can secure their preferred version for the longest" or "who can remove the most ideological opponents" but rather, " who can build an excellent encyclopedia ." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I have found Jerome Frank Disciple to a be super productive editor and someone who is super easy to work with on topics we have agreed and disagreed. The edit war sanction seemed hasty, but that has been resolved. My limited interaction with SPECIFICO has been less positive or productive, but nothing other than simple content disagreements. I will add that SPECIFICO's argument that JFD doesn't have temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles unfounded and honestly SPECIFICO is closer to that standard just based on prior history. That Trump article is a huge headache for obvious reasons so good luck to good editors attempting to wade through all the disputes. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Nemov on all points, for the reasons he stated.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I echo Nemov's opinion about Jerome. I've been involved in two discussions with Jerome from my knowledge. In one I was on his side and the other I wasn't. In both experiences I found his contributions to be valuable and civil. Now with that said, from my experiences, when Jerome is adamant about something he can be a bit bludgeony. , thats something you should work on. It's quite common with new editors to do that. So he should be warned not booted from the project or any topic area.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers<b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 03:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In case someone is counting !votes or something on this discussion, I oppose any sanctions against Jerome at this time for the reasons directly above. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 03:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment from OP: I appreciate all the comments and participation from everyone. I am trying to take to heart the critiques, though I have to admit it's also been very nice to read the complements, so thank you to everyone, but thank you especially to those have been able to talk about their history with me or who have been understanding of my motivations. It's truly heartwarming for me to read.I do want to apologize for all the trouble. I realize that, in some ways, I'm the worst messenger for this. The prospect of a boomerang discouraged me from commenting before. But I'm certain that SPECIFICO's actions discourage solid, good-faith editors from approaching the article—I'm certain that they already have done that, and I'm certain that they will do that. I know I sometimes have to fight against my own stubbornness—I try to be conscious of that—but, while that stubbornness is a defect, it's also what's allowed me to keep going on that page. And I think most editors agree that the vast majority of my edits on that page have been minor but objective improvements. In some ways, it's my stubbornness that allowed me to post here, even though it's also what makes posting here risky for me. Because I don't think an editor should have to be stubborn and fight through unjustified barriers in order to improve an article.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not been monitoring the situation that closely, but I seem to recall a vibe of hostility from SPECIFICO towards JFD at the Trump page, which may deserve a reminder on civility.  starship .paint  (exalt) 16:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jerome Frank Disciple and Shibbolethink have been editing the main page and the talk page, that mess and cesspool (their words), effusively since May 10. The sheer volume of edits, from punctuation to reading the sources for given texts, makes it hard to keep up with evaluating the merits of each one which may account for some of the less than elaborate edit summaries.  As for the messy cesspool, the current state of the talk page is not an improvement. Tone and vibe:  I thought I was detecting whiffs of condescension at times, but not from Specifico.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This matches my perception. There's a difference between trying to dictate how discussions are run, versus trying to help keep them on-point & concrete. SPECIFICO's in the latter camp. DFlhb (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support block or warning. Links provided by Jerome show beyond reasonable doubt that Specifico has been adopting a passive aggressive attitude towards other users in controversial topics. Furthermore, there are instances where Specifico refuses to engage in discussion; this is contradictory to the consensus building process as described in WP:Communication is required. One user in this thread suggested to "boomerang" this to the OP, but did not offer any reasoning. We must remember that this is not a VOTE, and suggestions without evidence are not to be given weight. What I see here is an instance of WP:UNBLOCKABLE, a pushback by the 'fan club' to turn the blame to the OP, who has made a valid complaint.--81.214.106.114 (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've largely been dormant on Wikipedia lately due to being uninterested in the project, but this feels like Jerome wants to send a genuine complaint, while Specifico is using the OP's disadvantages to their advantage. Nobody is perfect, even the most illustrious and high-ranking editors out there mess up. Jerome is otherwise a good editor, and I think if this situation is resolved in their favor then they can become a very well known and respected Wikipedian. If this is resolved in Specifico's favor, it likely won't improve anyone due to many warnings and blocks being sent to them and nothing really improving. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, strong support for some sort of community response here, if only to the extent of a firm warning I won't disagree that Jerome seems to need to make some adjustments here, and that this is not the strongest set of circumstances on which to bring SPECIFICO's conduct under scrutiny, because of those conflating "the other guy" factors.  That said, Jerome is far from the first editor to bring Specifico to a notice board over the last few years, or otherwise raise concerns about his discussion style.  And while I have not been in the position of being engaged in a prolonged content dispute with Specific myself, I do answer a fairly large number of RfCs as a major component of my contributions as a Wikipedian, I've had a number of occasions to directly observe his conduct in heated discussions, seeing as he seems to contribute almost exclusively in WP:ARBAP2 and other highly polarized American cultural topics.  And despite the indirect exposure, I've seen a lot of evidence of a highly abrasive approach to discussion and consensus on controversial topics.


 * And the thing is, as best I can recall, I actually agree with Specifico's favored approach to the content much more often than not: I think he often has his hands on the right end of the stick, or thereabouts, when it comes to policy. But I still have a concern that he may be a net negative for these areas, simply because of the propensity for exacerbating tense situations and thereby entrenching positions rather than moving matters closer to consensus, if doing so would require expressing any degree of self-doubt or willingness to compromise, rather than going in guns akimbo. Editors working in CTOP/GS areas consistently are expected to put a premium on civility and self-restraint, to make sure that they do not cost the community time and effort even when they have the better take on some editorial dispute.  And to put it mildly, that is not the sort of temperament Specifico seems to be bringing to bear on ARBAP topics, from my (admittedly intermittent) observations.


 * Jerome on the other hand, I can't recall having seen on the project until relatively recently, and yet I'm suddenly seeing his name in a lot of places all at once. Probably that's largely due to just a high level of activity at present, but I suspect some of it is also because he too is charging into high-contention areas and taking part in RfCs and other community dispute discussions that I happen to be randomly selected for through FRS or pending changes or this or that noticeboard.  I do get the sense (especially after reading this discussion), that he has a size/volume-of-contributions (i.e. bludgeoning especially) issue that he might want to address going forward.  But critically, everything about his conduct here suggests someone capable of accepting (and hopefully acting upon) feedback in that respect.  I have never gotten that feeling from Specifico when the community has raised concerns with him.  The walls go up pretty much immediately, accompanied by redirection of (/refusal to share any part) of the blame.


 * All of that said, I really need something more contemporary and substantial if I were to support a sanction in the form of a block or TBAN. So I'm not prepared to support such an action today.  That said, I do think it would be in everyone's best interest to provide a formal warning to him that the community has to assess contributors such as himself, who are often right on the facts but can't present them without a wake of disruption, with a cost-benefit analysis, and that additional new topic bans are on the table if there is a continued pattern of tendentiousness and ownership behaviours. <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> 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Odd that you have so much experience with Specifico, and yet used the incorrect pronoun to reference her nine times. Please be more careful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO's user page says: "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." How are other users supposed to know what pronouns to use, if not from that page? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hover your mouse over her username. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That does nothing for me but show username. Maybe you've got something enabled I don't? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think it matters if the editor in question is fine with anything. Cessaune   [ talk ]   21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Vibes, man. Or meta:User:SMcCandlish/userinfo which shows a little icon at the top of people's user pages based on what they set for Special:Preferences's "Gender used in messages" setting. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am virtually certain that I have seen indication that Specifico went by male pronouns in the past. By default (and you're welcome to check up on my recent edits to confirm this), I always refer to fellow community members on this project by gender-neutral "they", unless and until I know they embrace a gender and utilize a particular other pronoun here.  It's a firm rule I follow for a number of reasons, so you can rest assured that I referred to Specifico as "he" because I believed that was Specifico's preference.  If I misremembered (and I don't think I have, but it's possible) or her preferences have changed, I apologize and you can be certain I will comply with whatever Specifico's preferences are at any given 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> 04:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit obscure, but  → . Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug for WP:EDPRONOUNS, featuring guidance on general pronoun practices, finding a specific editor's pronouns, and how to handle mistakes regarding pronouns. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting off-topic. We should return to the main issue at the hand. I think an administrator should collapse this part of the discussion. 81.214.106.114 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is a doozy. A lot of talk for what seems to me like something that should not have even been brought to ANI in the first place. Jerome has made a lot of edits, some of which SPECIFICO challenged, and is unsatisfied with SPECIFICO's response (or lack thereof). Obviously you are not required to explain your reason for reverting an edit on the talk page, though that is preferred, but these edits were extremely small, and Jerome's insistence of opening a talk page thread for each one is pretty unreasonable, especially at a page that has as many watchers as Trump's does. This is a scenario that often plays out between experienced editors and newcomers. Ideally Jerome would have just moved on, knowing that if their edits were reverted and nobody came to their defense out of the hundreds of editors watching the page, their edit was likely correctly reverted. It is disruptive to demand a consensus for small edits on a page that is highly visible. If there was a major issue with these edits, it would have been brought up and discussed by multiple editors on the talk page. That Jerome chose to come here seems they think they are entitled to a response and gives the impression of filibustering. It should be made clear to Jerome that they are not entitled to any response beyond that explained in a reasonable edit summary. Simply put, the lack of response to Jerome's objections is the community saying this is not worth their time. The only thing I see as possibly warranting this ANI is SPECIFICO appearing dismissive by telling Jerome to step away from the page multiple times, though not to the point sanctions are needed. Bottom line: Jerome needs to learn when to move on, and SPECIFICO needs to remember to not discourage good-faith editors from contributing. Nothing sanctionable, no warnings needed beyond those mild reminders. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The page has a BRD notice on it. The page literally tells users to post on the talk page if reverted. If JFD is following policy and guidelines and page notices, and you disagree with JFD, then it seems you may be interested in changing those things, rather than correcting JFD's behavior. I responded to JFD's threads, and agreed in multiple that JFD was correct. SPECIFICO didn't respond. So I reimplemented his changes. I would never have noticed them if not for the talk page sections. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It tells users to post on the talk page because that is preferred to edit warring. It is not a requirement to post on the talk page, and indeed it is not common practice for every little revert to be discussed on the talk page. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's good that you responded and restored, all I'm saying is that an ANI is not justified simply because SPECIFICO did not respond to the threads. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  02:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree? If it were only the case that SPECIFICO was reverting me on dubious grounds and then not responding to requests for elaboration, I absolutely wouldn't have come here! But, as I explained, it wasn't just that.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I will note without further comment that there is a separate section concerning a user who made seven (7) strongly opinionated political edits arguing with other users; the section for this user was closed with an immediate indef-block, and with no discussion having taken place in it other than the report and the announcement of the block. jp×g 02:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a wildly inapt comparison. A new editor flooding talk pages with sections like "was this article written by the Democrats" and "‎Why can nothing bad about Obama be added?" is a different situation than an established editor with a large amount of productive contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you "noting" ? What possible comparison is there between an SPA troll and a user who has been here for a decade with 30,000 edits? Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: 1 month TBAN from AmPol for SPECIFICO
The biggest issue that keeps coming up with SPECIFICO is her behavior towards other users. Some highlights:
 * 1) Repeatedly calling single reverts "edit warring"
 * 2) Repeatedly "going to many editors' talk pages to allege" [insert various forms of misconduct] without evidence. (e.g. WP:ASPERSIONS)
 * 3) Subset: alleging misconduct on talk pages without evidence. E.g. Please do not personalize your talk page comments. Please make neutrally worded statements of issues that concern you. (in response to this comment of mine: @SPECIFICO then reverted that most recent change (not restoring STATUSQUO, but restoring STC's edit)...) and instances of other accusations like these:
 * 4) Failing to AGF and generally biting newcomers (not just to the site, but to her preferred article spaces):
 * 5) This is another instance of your not being as familiar with WP policies and guidelines as you think.
 * 6) Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback
 * 7) Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. (in response to a comment I made citing 8 WP:HQRSes and arguing the content was WP:DUE)
 * No, I object. You should not be setting up an RfC, certainly not within a couple of hours of posting at BLPN for additional discussion and moreover with your relative inexperience as an editor on this page and on this site
 * 1) No more snide remarks please Disciple. Longtime editors in contentious topics are quite aware of NPOV
 * 2) This is quite an intriguing approach. We could get this article down to about 3 sentences, after his birth in Queens etc. (interestingly, a snide remark)
 * 3) There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion? in response to this comment where JFD...agrees with SPECIFICO.
 * 4) Trying to bump off a witness?
 * 5) This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done?
 * 6) As an aside, SPECIFICO here and here argues against longstanding consensus and says that Donald Trump "did not promote "misinformation" about [ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc]" but instead that "He caused his followers to take the drugs." and that discussions about this content is not relevant to the fringe theories noticeboard (including other content re: PCR/antigen tests SPECIFICO agreed was misinformation). All of this because "Lies ≠ Fringe".

All of which amounts to, in my assessment, an editor who is fed up with newcomers to articles, arguing their positions in a way that criticizes certain behaviors in others but does not reflect those standards in their own conduct (positions, btw, that I actually support much of the time). This behavior in SPECIFICO leads to a general sense that new contributions which disagree with SPECIFICO are not welcome on the pages they frequent (in this case Donald Trump).

This overall behavioral pattern is similar to past behavior which earned SPECIFICO (by my count) Six formal warnings from admins, a 48h block, two TBANs from AMPol topics (the last, in 2020, for 2 weeks, matching a 2 week TBAN from Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations 5 months earlier), and two I-bans (in 2020 and 2014) from users they disagreed with in ways similar to this situation.


 * "Simply put, there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO for 48 hours as a standard admin action. Blocks serve two purposes, to stop disruption now and/or to act as a deterrent to undesirable behavior in the future. This block is obviously for the latter rather than the former. To be clear, SPECIFICO's final revert was against policy as breaking the Consensus Required restriction on the page. There was no BLP or other exemption under 3RRNO that could have applied, it was simply editorial preference. I don't think he is lying, but I do think he understood there was risk to the path he chose, and risks often have consequences. In this case, a block. While I'm quite sure this sanction is sure to displease everyone, and perhaps in equal measure but for different reasons, it was done after careful and long consideration." 10 August 2022


 * "SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally." 25 May 2022


 * I-ban after this whole thing . 26 December 2020


 * "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from Julian Assange for a period of 2 weeks per this AE request." 5 November 2020


 * "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later." 17 October 2020


 * "You are topic banned from editing material related to sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden for 1 week (until 20 May 2020)."


 * "SPECIFICO is given a logged warning as follows: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions" 9 April 2020


 * "SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is placed under the Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions described at User:Awilley/Special discretionary sanctions for a duration of 1 year." 13 August 2018


 * "No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward." 15 June 2018


 * "While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area, knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus.", "That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed."  3 June 2018
 * "SPECIFICO is reminded of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warned that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions." 20 May 2018


 * 1-way I-ban . 14 September 2014


 * TBAN from Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute . 22 April 2014

Why is the project tolerating these behaviors, from a user who should definitely know better? Given that she has received numerous warnings for precisely this behavior? In this very thread, SPECIFICO has described JFD's conduct like this: there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone and I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles. when the most salient comment thread from uninvolved users above is that JFD's tone is conciliatory and collaborative. 

This thread does have an imperfect opening comment, and there are ways JFD could change their approach, but we should not let that cloud our judgment here that SPECIFICO has absolutely broken WP:TPG and other important behavioral standards. I propose an escalation of the prior TBAN in a way which clearly demonstrates to SPECIFICO that her conduct is inappropriate, and will continue to be met with sanctions if it continues. Numerous prior warnings and very short TBANs have not worked. Why would we expect that approach to work here? Thank you. Happy to answer any questions about the above, as always.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) (edited 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC) to add a point that just happened over at Talk:Donald Trump

@-sche @Andrevan @Anythingyouwant @Coolman2917 @Floquenbeam @FormalDude @Iamreallygoodatcheckers @JPxG @ScottishFinnishRadish @Johnuniq @Tamzin @Nemov @Softlavender @Space4Time3Continuum2x @ValarianB @QuicoleJR @ONUnicorn @WikiVirusC @Jayron32 @Cessaune @KoA @Cullen328 @MelanieN @DFlhb @Slatersteven @Bob K31416 @Mandruss @Lights and freedom @NeverEndingForever @The Four Deuces @The Capitalist forever @Alcibiades979 @Zaathras @Jerome Frank Disciple @SPECIFICO

Survey re: TBAN for SPECIFICO

 * Oppose - There are over 100 articles in the Donald Trump series. The main article alone has 155 archives and a current consensus of 60 items. Donald Trump articles are among the most difficult to edit of the 6.6 million in English Wikipedia. Editors foolish enough to edit them bear the scars as evidence. Through enormous effort resulting in innumerable sanctions over the years, the article is now in quite good shape and the remaining editors have reached a state where reasonably collaborative and well-structured discussion takes place. Then, a newcomer appeared with an account created in February. The TP is now difficult to wade through with discussions broken into pieces, an RfC improperly started by JFD and killed by an admin, posts by JFD edited after responses have been made, changes to the article made quickly without consensus, three claims of censorship by JFD, and placing an RPA flag in a post of mine that was in no way a personal attack, and also falsely claimed I was attempting to RGW. I didn’t include diffs as it would look like cherry-picking with so much commentary -- besides, it’s very difficult with all the activity and I’m not suggesting a block. But, I will link to the discussion JFD brought to my TP and the discussion JFD brought to Bishonen’s TP where JFD continued to say I was at fault for the results of their poor TP editing practices, and where she asked JFD to “take your hints and sneers elsewhere”. . It’s my humble opinion that JFD came to one of the most difficult articles in WP too early, in particular given that their very large number of edits to both the article and TP appears as though JFD was trying to take command of the article, ironic given the title of this filing accuses Specifico of such. Indeed, looking at the title of the filling, I find it odd that JFD would accuse Specifico of edit warring having just received a block for edit warring themselves four hours earlier from the same article. Smells like retribution. In any case, removing Specifico while allowing JFD to continue their bad behavior could damage one of the most widely read articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Provided links show that there is a violation of several policies on part of Specifico. Specifico refused to engage in consensus building process by being unresponsive and also made comments that were discouraging for other users to edit in a controversial topic area. While JFD should have reduced his editing pace, we should remember that WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CIVILITY are policy and carry higher precedence than WP:BLUDGEON, which is an essay. Plus, from the block log, we know that this is not an isolated incident but a pattern of long standing problem.--81.214.106.114 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * IP editors have no say in such discussions. Zaathras (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Zaathras, what the heck? WP:SENIORITY, WP:EQUALITY. Is there a policy stating so that I'm unaware of? Cessaune   [ talk ]   13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there absolutely is not: Zaathras just completely made that up, which frankly is nothing short of WP:disruptive. Zaathras, you are not doing Specifico any favours with this kind of stunt.  Considering that she is fighting to stave of accusations that include elements of WP:OWN and gatekeeping, this kind of comment in her "support" is decidedly not to her benefit.  Maybe you ought to leave the effort to defend her conduct to her.  <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> 20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think an IP editor with a barely a dozen edits actually gets a say in whether users are blocked or topic-banned, then than is a severe misunderstanding on your part. I suggest some self-reflection. Zaathras (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:IP editors are human too. 81.214.106.114 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The longstanding consensus of this community, going back to the earliest days of the project, is that IP editors have all the same rights and standing to contribute to  any  community discussion. Other community members are free to weigh the fact that the input comes from an unregistered user as they wish, and a closer might even weight it differently, but your comment that "IPs have no say in such discussions" is fundamentally a knowing misstatement of policy, and against enshrined community values.  And again, definitely not helping the situation for the person you feel you are here to support.  You need to stop this, now. It will go nowhere good for you or anyone.  <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> 20:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "fighting to stave off" ? Do I look like to you like I'm fighting? That strikes me as kind of an uncivil and condescending rebuke to Zaathras. Your remark has a bit of the look of a thumb on the scale, for whatever inapparent reason. Amd there have been no diffs that show OWN etc., so aside from being off-topic for your comment, that too was uncalled for.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief, if you really think those comments, coming from someone in the same breath as they were supporting you, is a good look for you, fine: that's your business. But Zaathras' comments also violated several policies and were plainly disruptive.  If not by me, they would have been corrected by someone, and rightly so.  Nor was my response "uncivil" or "condescending".  As to "putting my thumb on the scale", how in the wide world does that make rational sense to you in the context of my telling someone else they were not allowed to tell a third party they could not contribute to this discussion? In any event, I feel I've been quite equanimous with my feedback in this discussion.  I am not in any a way a party to any of the disputes that brought you here, and have no "whatever" reason to be predisposed towards bias in evaluating your conduct as a random respondent in this community space.  And I've even gone to efforts to explain why I think it would be a loss to us to have you sidelined for an extended period of time.  But your conduct and your attitude towards your fellow editors stink, frankly. It's that simple. Sometimes the easiest solutions are the simplest: i.e., I'm giving you my honest opinion.  And guess what, even people not involved in any dispute with you can (and clearly do) have qualms about how you carry yourself here and the impact your behaviour has on discussions.


 * And yes, part of the original complaints here involve accusations that you told someone they were not qualified to comment in a talk page discussion, so that very much imputes the issue of wp:own; I'm not staking out an opinion as to whether or not that particular accusation is valid, but as a matter of fact and record, it is a part of what was complained of by involved parties. I didn't just make it up to add some invective to the debate fr some random reason.  I honestly pointed that out to try to stop Zaathras from doing your position collateral damage by association, with an upsacled policy violation version of basically the same behaviour.  I felt that would be an unfair influence against your interests, in a discussion that ought to be decided on your conduct alone.  Good grief, the gratitude...  <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> 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no policy violations or anything of the sort. Drop the hyperbole and stop the snide comments aimed at me, thankyouverymuch. Zaathras (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I think the comprehensive evidence raised above, and the history, supports the severity of the sanction. I would oppose any harsher sanction with this evidence. It is not impossible to be civil while editing on Donald Trump - I have some experience with the topic area. SPECIFICO will not be permanently removed, and many other editors will continue to edit the topic area. As to whether JFD should be removed, that is for editors to propose and discuss. If this is implemented, I hope that this will be the last sanction SPECIFICO receives, as I hope that she can improve her approach accordingly to avoid the behaviour listed above.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but only for a time-limited block within the proposed parameters. As others have noted above, these are not ideal circumstances for a sanction, as the events immediately precipating this discussion are mixed bag in which Specifico's conduct is not the only conduct needing alteration. But when the history of warnings and sanctions is layed out in full as above (and even without the block log added in), it's pretty clear that Specifico can be considered to have long been on-notice that they need to make some behavioural changes--even in circumstances where there is blame to go around.


 * In trying to thread that needle, a month long (or less) ban from the topic area where these habits are mostly on display makes sense in two regards: 1) emphasizing the community's diminishing patience, of course, and 2) giving Specifico a pause to consider the implications of being removed from the area where they are most productive, and to consider what needs to change to avoid that outcome. It also creates a record of the fact that the community is collectively hitting a threshold moment with the concerns about civlity and increasing the heat in already difficult areas, so that if Specifico refuses to head the message this time, we don't have to start this discussion over again for the nth time if we get here again, and we can instead contemplate whether the moment has come for a longer-term restriction.  Others have said it and I'll repeat it, hoping it doesn't sound like a platitude: I would think Specifico is, from an abudance of evidence, more than smart enough to adapt here.  But at some point the community has to drop the light touch with a community member with such a bombastic style of dealing with disagreement. <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> 02:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support, and might very well be supporting a longer term ban, if it were called for. I'm converted, and entirely by the efforts of the editor in question, not anything that has been added in the last day by the complainants. The level of IDHT here is substantial, as is the self-defeating blowback in literally all directions towards any editor who is not 100% in support, whether they were party to earlier disputes or just commenting here. I'm convinced only a strong statement has a chance of sending the community's message, though I now have doubts whether it will lead to the required longterm change. <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> 21:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - but I wouldn't support anything longer. These don't seem to be issues that can't be overcome. However, the editor may be approaching the point of exhausting the community's patience. Nemov (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, because of the comment I made earlier when this proposal didn't exist: "I've largely been dormant on Wikipedia lately due to being uninterested in the project, but this feels like Jerome wants to send a genuine complaint, while Specifico is using the OP's disadvantages to their advantage. Nobody is perfect, even the most illustrious and high-ranking editors out there mess up. Jerome is otherwise a good editor, and I think if this situation is resolved in their favor then they can become a very well known and respected Wikipedian. If this is resolved in Specifico's favor, it likely won't improve anyone due to many warnings and blocks being sent to them and nothing really improving. (Friday)" I'm treating this as a more behavioral issue and less of an editorial issue, though there is a mild editing problem in the mix too. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 13:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Talk:Donald Trump was relatively tame until new user Jerome Frank Disciple proceeded to toss grenades masked as massive Text Walls into the affair. If you're going to return a complex article and talk page back to status quo ante, then looking at Specifico is looking in the completely wrong direction. I don't blame anyone for getting frustrated with that mess. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea that Talk:Donald Trump has ever been relatively tame is preposterous. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this strongly. JFD is perhaps the best current editor at Trump, in terms of both general civility and source-backed proposals. And, also, I agree with Nemov—the Trump talk page hasn't been "relatively tame" since, like, 2014. Do you actually have a claim pertaining to the above evidence? Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, "relatively tame", as opposed to the sprawling mess that JFD and to a lesser extent Shibbolethink have made it. I really don't value the opinion of an involved editor who seeks to remove perceived opponents like knocking off a rook on a chessboard. Kindly refrain from future pings. Zaathras (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - your own combativeness is not a good look, given that you were warned in the topic area just this month, and page banned in the topic area earlier this year.  starship .paint  (exalt) 16:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am simply airing an opinion, which is not a right I have lost. If you find it disagreeable, then kindly shuffle on. Zaathras (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All combativeness is simply airing one's opinions. Being 99%-retired, I had not intended to comment in this discussion. I find your combativeness disagreeable and will now shuffle on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I do not find your comment disagreeable at all. A handful of others, however, keep pinging me and making combative statements. If someone one doesn't want a dog to growl, it is usually wise to cease poking it. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked a simple question, Zaathras (Is there a policy stating so that I'm aware of?) after you said IP editors have no say in such discussions-- Cessaune  [ talk ]   13:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC) and pinged you. I then shared my opinion and asked another question (Do you actually have a claim pertaining to the above evidence?) without pinging you. Neither of these questions were asked in bad faith; the second question was asked because you didn't actually engage with the above SPECIFICO diffs at all in your !vote. I hope I'm not included in the "keep pinging me" category, and I really hope that my statements weren't perceived as combative. If that is the case, as always, I never intend to do that, and I'm sorry.  Cessaune   [ talk ]   13:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Floquenbeam called this five days ago, and the thread was heavily influenced by and bludgeoned by Shibbolethink.  Boomerangs for OP and Shibbolethink.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support SPECIFICO is clearly tendentious, usually if not always removing negative information from articles about mainstream Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, while adding negative information to articles about Republicans and any Democrats who challenge the mainstream. As a result of their disruption, Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy has already nine pages of archived discussion which continues because SPECIFICO will not accept that the article call it Hunter Biden's laptop. Not only does this waste other editors' time, but it prevents the article from being developed. SPECIFICO has probably avoided greater sanctions in the past because there are a number of active editors who share his politics. But none of them go to the lengths SPECIFICO does, to continue to make arguments that they obviously know are bogus. TFD (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO's not remotely in a WP:1AM situation on the Hunter talk page, and her concerns are perfectly legitimate, as I and others outlined on the talk page a few months back in that big RfC (in fact, imma add it back to my watchlist); and I say this as someone who initially supported calling it Hunter's laptop, and was swayed by the sources. It's balderdash to blame SPECIFICO for that content dispute when there are numerous editors on either side and IMO reasonable concerns (shared by sources!) on her side. DFlhb (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As you say there was an RfC and although SPECIFICO and most editors of the page disagreed with calling it Biden's laptop, outside editors were almost unanimous in saying it was. The RfC was properly closed and the relevant edits made. Then SPECIFICO changed the text and started the whole debate over again. Of course they couldn't have done this without the support of a handful of editors with a similar editing history, but that doesn't justify their actions. TFD (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support for a month and no longer (damn why do I feel so guilty)- I'm kind of conflicted here. There is no doubt in my mind that SPECIFICO is, in general, a good editor. However, it's almost silly to vote against this, both based on the above diffs, and the fact that it's only a one-month tban. However however, these situations seem to be cherrypicked from the worst of SPECIFICO's comments, and it also feels to me like someone's been slowly compilling diffs, biding their time. I don't know. Regardless, I guess it's the repeated behavior that's the real issue. I don't know if a tban is the correct path, and I really don't want to lose SPECIFICO as a regular, mostly constructive editor at Trump, but if this is the path we must go down, I guess we must go down this path. We'll see what happens. Cessaune   [ talk ]   14:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, support boomerang for OP Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to read tu quoque. Furthermore, this proposal is not initiated by JFD, whom you proposed to boomerang earlier in this thread. 81.214.106.114 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear I was reiterating my call to boomerang JFD, not Shibbolethink. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, SPECIFICO's political leanings on the the Trump article seem to definitely show bias when he makes replies and changes. Also has a problem with edit-warring and repeatedly reverting good faith edits without much explanation except on the talk page where he makes himself superior of any opinion or talk page consensus. The Capitalist forever  ( talk ) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that the above editor is a example of the kind of button-pusher that more experienced editors tend to sooner or later pop off after having to deal with them. "Obviously this entire article was written by democrats and no conservative sources of the President's political party were mentioned, therefore not explaining the two sides/opinions of the subject, and only portraying him as the worst president when arguments could be made that Franklin Peirce was the worst president.". . Zaathras (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as an uninvolved editor who has not edited Donald Trump anywhere close to recently, and who broadly agrees with SPECIFICO on the object-level content decisions. The list of evidence above is kinda nuts, and I'm surprised that given it there isn't more support for a longer topic ban. Is it because there isn't a single smoking-gun diff anywhere? I've found in the past that the community seems to be very reluctant to impose sanctions for a pattern of behavior as long as no single incident in that pattern of behavior is too egregious. It's definitely true that none of the specific incidents SPECIFICO is accused of is that bad... but taken all together it paints a picture of an editor who is blatantly uncivil as a matter of course and who has absolutely refused to change this behavior despite multiple previous sanctions for it. That's getting into "permanent topic ban" territory, IMO.
 * (As for the accusations of "compiling diffs": I don't care. A constructive editor should not have this many diffs to compile. I don't see any reason to believe that either JFD or Shibbolethink have any kind of long-standing grudge against SPECIFICO, but even if they do, the fact that they can back up their grudge with this kind of evidence is pretty damning, right?) Loki (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Very busy with a family matter so I've read the opening statement but only reviewed a few diffs in detail. While a few are indeed bad (3.1 and 3.2), other diffs don't support the accompanying narrative. Again, busy, so I have to just pick out a few. Facetious comments (diffs 3.6, 3.8) help keep discussions from becoming too stiff, and an't sanctionable. Diff 3.3 is true: merely stating that something was covered by WP:RS isn't an argument for inclusion (WP:VNOT). Diff 3.4 is also true: JFD, for all his good intentions, is inexperienced and it would have been extremely ineffective to start a non-workshopped RfC, with non-neutral prompt, and two lengthy proposed versions that would be inappropriate to "lock-in" through an RfC. Wouldn't have helped us move towards a resolution.
 * I don't support sanctions against any editor at this time. JFD was ill-advised but earnest in starting a ton of threads over relatively trivial copyedits when there was already an ongoing huge unwieldy discussion about the E. Jean Carroll addition. But understanding of context and timing is too subtle to punish newer editors over. We treat bludgeoning as a conduct issue, and it is, but I think good-faith JFD is a good example for why we should also see it as a symptom of ineffective communication, and build a set of essays on how to communicate more effectively. Every comment posted on Wikipedia is meant to achieve a specific outcome, but we all do it indirectly or ineffectively at times (some more than others for sure), and I think this is the main cause of good-faith editors, novice and experienced, ending up at ANI. DFlhb (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that Shibbolethink started this TBAN proposal, let's look at his behavior today at that same Trump talk page. There, I proposed we replace one lead sentence with a better summary of the body section, and showed two tier-1 scholarly sources (40+ citations each) to support my summary's salience (diff1). Shibbolethink proposed an alternative, and when asked to show dueness, replied twice with lengthy lists + analyses of every link he found on the first page of a Google search, admitting that many of these links are unreliable or irrelevant (diff2, diff3). These sources contradict his own argument. In both replies, sources that mention multiple examples are presented as proof that one example is due, and somehow not other examples mentioned in the same sentence (in one source in diff2, his example is 3 bullet points out of 54). In his other reply, his sources support the dueness of Trump's COVID illness more than that of his preferred example. Shibbolethink's methodology is so nonsensical that he admits it tells us very little about what sources find important in the overall response (diff3 again). So why do these nonsensical "source surveys" account for 41% of that short subsection's word count? (Mine are 23%.) Then to top it off he tossed aspersions of cherry-picking and violating PAGs (diff). I agree with Shibbolethink that we hold experienced editors to a higher standard. So, given that he started a TBAN proposal for disruption, why can I find diffs from today of him disrupting that very same talk page with unreadable walls of text (with copious bold font), stupefyingly using random links from the first page of Google to prove dueness? DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS? Wow, that's strong. I don't think the diff you provided shows any of that. Like, honestly, where did aspersions come from? At least in my opinion, ...to exclude this content because our own self-selected sources that we like don't mention it is not inline with our PAGs is a far ways away from the malice, repetitiveness, and general lack of self-awareness necessary. I honestly don't understand how you can compare what Shibb did to what SPECIFICO has been doing, and the entire reason we are here. A single one of the above SPECIFICO diffs is much more damning, and, frankly, much more of an aspersion issue than anything Shibb has done at Trump, regardless of the fact that it may be a little disruptive. If you oppose SPECIFCO being tbanned, in my eyes there's no way you can simultanouesly support Shibb being tbanned. If you would oppose Shibb being tbanned then your statement above is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 * Shibbolethink's methodology is closer to WP:DPT than proving WP:DUEness, so you're kind of right, but I think you're getting riled up about nothing really. Cessaune   [ talk ]   00:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I do not edit in this area but the pov pushing is a maddening issue. I also find that SPECIFICO has demonstrated an intractable combative posture and refuses to drop the stick. The section of the project can use a break from this type of behavior and editing pattern. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the same is imposed on Jerome Frank Disciple. I think Jerome Frank Disciple needs, at the very least, a limit of the number of edits they make per a given time period on any affected article or talkpage; this behavior seems to be more disruptive than SPECIFICO's, and is exhausting and wastes the community's time. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Whether any and if so what sanction is or is not given to JFD is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO has a long history of completely inappropriate behaviour in the topic area and this behaviour is not directed at or otherwise related to any single editor. I would acutally support a much longer topic ban, because previous short ones have obviously not had the desired effect, but as a minimum this is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Should be indefinite. Let's take the bull by the horns and do the right thing here. Per the evidence submitted, Specifico has been getting sanctioned in this area since 2014. Enough is enough. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: TBAN for SPECIFICO

 * In any case, removing Specifico while allowing JFD to continue their bad behavior could damage one of the most widely read articles There are many multiple other editors on this page who disagree with JFD. I think those editors will be perfectly capable of reining in any misconduct from JFD and reporting it to the appropriate noticeboards/admins. I think from this entire thread and its response, JFD knows what they did wrong, was appropriately sanctioned, and knows their conduct will be under the microscope moving forward. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have seen no evidence that JFD takes to heart criticism. Why else would they make a filing against someone at ANI for civility, edit warring, and ownership when those are their problems -- particularly when they had just been blocked for edit warring four hours before the filing? Indeed, having Specifico thrown off the article will likely give JFD confidence to continue bad behavior. And yes other editors exist. But, we are at a very difficult period in history for this article given the subject's legal challenges and campaign. Frankly, the AMPol articles are so difficult, most admins are too intelligent to tread foot in them. (Even angels fear to tread therein.) This is the wrong time to weed out or chase away editors with the deep experience in those particular articles required to edit such an article, while welcoming someone clearly not prepared for the challenge who throws around accusations, misconstrues other editors' posts, and makes snide remarks -- even to an admin. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen no evidence that JFD takes to heart criticism. I think this thread shows that.throws around accusations, misconstrues other editors' posts, and makes snide remarks I agree, but I think we should use community tools to TBAN/short term block any editor who does these things in a way which drives other editors to leave the project. I've shown above instances in which SPECIFICO does all of these things (and more). If you provide diffs showing JFD doing such things, I would support a similar sanction for them. In their case, a 2 week TBAN given it would be their first instance of such behaviors. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Admitting error after a block in order to get the block lifted is not evidence of taking anything to heart. Flowers to a battered wife. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have I violated WP:BRD since? Diff?-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And what you call a post taking to heart criticism was made nine minutes before what I would call this retaliatory filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * retaliatory filing (from JFD) I get why you say that. My interpretation differs, but I understand why that is your belief. But it doesn't mean the concerns expressed in this thread by editors other than JFD are without merit. Why would I be proposing a TBAN, since SPECIFICO hasn't (yet) tried to get me blocked? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm, I didn't say all proposals are retaliatory. First I've seen here in ages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood my intention. What I'm saying is: why does any of that have any bearing on the merits of this TBAN proposal? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have said what I came to say in the combination of my edits above. Don't really want to spend more time on this and have lost interest in the article given the current atmosphere, which is now likely to continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * At this point I suggest everyone in this thread WP:TROUT themselves and move on. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And I was just trying to come up with an idea for tonight's dinner. However, your suggestion means that we must now spend 20,000 words on which trout icon to use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This complaint is being sustained and rather persistently prosecuted by editors who are involved in a content discussion (dispute) at the Donald Trump talk page. See here for a summary of the most recent involvements. The purportedly damning links given in this ANI, cherrypicked excerpts purporting to show incivility, and snarky narratives in this thread ("this gem", etc.) do not support the allegations. Snow Rise, in comments from an uninvolved editor such as yourself, I'd have expected recent diffs or specific narratives about the current situation that would support your position here. Of course, if this were at AE, the Admins there would require that there actually be diffs that support whatever is alleged and would read things with their customary critical judgment.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, believe me, I realize there's a context here of other subpar actors, and I very nearly did !vote weak oppose for that very reason. But the pattern is pretty clear here: I can understand why it feels a little unfair to brought to account for your actions in this context, but sometimes when you have been warned by the community over a period of years about problematic behaviour and do little to nothing to acknowledge or reform those issues, this is the risk you run--that the straw that breaks the camel's back comes in a situation where you were not the only (or even necessarily the biggest) disruptive influence.  And to be honest, the sense of IDHT from you historically on these issues is a big part of what pushed me over to the "act now, rather than continue to kick it down the road" column.  Because the diffs above do not "purport" to show you acting incivily: they do show you acting in an incivil and otherwise inappropriate manner, both as a historical and contemporaneous matter. And the fact that you never can seem to own up to this is cause for concern that you genuinely don't get where the lines are, and the community needs to speak louder to get you to see them.


 * Because frankly, another big part of why I am supporting action now (but with a relatively light sanction) is because I would rather not lose your contributions altogether, and I am convinced you are on track for either an indef ban from WP:ARBAP topics or a longterm block. You have been blocked by admins in their individual capacity, you've been TBANed a number of times, 1-way IBANed, and received a slew of additional warnings in ANX forums and at AE.  Sooner or later the community will run out of patience, and that will be a bad day for you and the project.  Your take-no-prisoners approach to dispute just is not working.  Put aside the consequences for your personally: despite the significant amount of good you do, you also do a lot of collateral damage to the side you want to support with the refusal to maintain your cool.


 * And I'm not basing this entirely upon the word of your regular adversaries who have manifested here. I generally have very little interest in contemporary AmPol topics, but I have always regularly participated in a fair number of random RfCs, so I get a semi-regular re-appraisal of what is going on in those areas (and in culture war articles generally) despite a lack of personal interest--and those notices jumped by about a factor of ten starting with the advent of the Trump administration.  And there are a handful of names that I expect to see in the fray virtually every time I arrive at a brouhaha in this area, and yours is one of them.  That in itself is not an indication of wrong doing, but I must tell you that I have two extremely strong impressions from the one or two dozen articles I have seen you operating on: 1) I agree with your take on the policy considerations much more often than not, probably in the upper 90th percentiles, and 2) your conduct is often way beyond the pale when it comes to WP:CIV.


 * Now, I get these areas are fraught with tension and that your own patience is also not infrequently tested by some nonsense, by virtue of this context. But I'm sorry, that does not omit you from scrupulously following our behavioural guidelines.  You choose to edit in these highly controversial areas, and you bear the responsibility of doing so in an appropriate manner.  You seem to view yourself as an antidote to a certain strain of propaganda and misinformation.  And let me be clear: I don't doubt that you have played a central role in keeping all manner of terrible content out of highly visible articles. Thank you for that; that is why I want you to stay here for many years to come. But you are selling yourself a false choice if you are convinced that your effectiveness in these areas requires you to employ fire-with-fire tactics: this is actually detracting from your value. <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> 16:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia heavily influenced by and bludgeoned by Shibbolethink.I have replied 15 times in a thread of 92 responses, participated in by (my count) ~20 editors. Each of my comments has been heavily collapsed and formatted to avoid over-extending the volume of my comments. But in threads such as these, when asked for diffs, I have provided diffs. When asked to elaborate, I have elaborated. When asked to show clearly which sanctions are recent and which are from "9 years ago" I have done so. When asked to narrow to specific concerns such as behavior, I have done so. In response to that reply from Floq, I provided a reverse chronological list showing that the concerning behaviors that are a pattern with the above are from the last year (since May 2022). But yes, they have correlates in 2020 and 2018. Could you describe how any of that is bludgeoning the discussion? Thanks (Edited 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) to correct numbers, I miscounted and redid in an automated fashion.) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia, I concur with Shibbolethink. I find your comment a bit of whataboutism that has very little to do with the specific discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here from the ping. I was asked to comment on the proposed text from WP:FTN, so I've been uninvolved in Trump stuff outside of my look over of the proposal at the page. With that, I don't know who has said what in the past or who's been in dispute with who. I've bumped into SPECIFICO over time and have usually had variable and decent interactions with them. If I've seen behavior issues, it was usually tied up with trying to wrangle other problem editors, so I'm one to usually give some pause and dig into the topic more if I see their name at admin boards.


 * In this case though, I am getting a pretty major red flag from SPECIFICO, and I hope they reflect on that as someone who has worked with them in the past. Had they only just been concerned about the amount of space used in the lead to cover the subject's WP:FRINGE activities, that can be handled in discussion. To say though I'm stumped as to what this has to do with FRINGE. Lies ≠ Fringe. about COVID denial, etc. in this day and age when we've been dealing with lies and misinformation pretty prominently across the encyclopedia really strikes me as someone acting as a timesink to put it nicely. If it were someone else saying it, I would be concerned about a statement like that + "let's keep it short" sentiment" as attempts to keep negative information out of or minimalized in an article, which is something we have to deal with often over at WP:FTN with more problem editors. I consider it just being haphazard though in that case, especially since you appear to have detractors accusing you of doing the exact opposite for adding negative information (not assessing the validity of those edits one way or another).


 * So SPECIFICO, I hope you see just how poor of a path you're going down. I'm not going to formally vote on sanctions, but comments like that are showing me that you aren't exercising the care needed to edit in a controversial topic like COVID-19 misinformation. With that, I do think you need to step back from that area regardless of sanctions, and I'm usually not very quick to say that. That's how much of a red flag that comment was to someone who stays out of politics topics but does focus on science/fringe issues. If there are actual fringe proponents at that page, that should also be dealt with, but it was your comment that really drew my attention. KoA (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Our page WP:FRINGE and in particular FRN is about how we must ensure that fringe content cannot be mistaken for mainstream or valid dissenting views by our readers. The discussion in the Trump page was about micro-tweaks of language, not about language that would fail to convery Trump's promotion of false and dangerous unproven and disproved narratives, medical treatments, etc. as if they were valid "alternative facts". That FRINGE page and that FTN noticeboard are where we make sure that such content is not falsely presented as reasonable, widely endorsed, or well founded. If the notification on that FTN gave you the misimpression that anyone at the Trump page was suggesting language that remotely approached a FRINGE violation, that's unfortunate. A lot of my work here over more than a decade has been devoted to ensuring that such UNDUE, false, and controversial information is presented as such. Editing in FRINGE-prone areas is difficult because one encounters, shall we say, highly motivated editors on such pages. But that discussion at Trump, as you can see in the summary provided by  was about how to tweak the lead wording of longstanding text about Trump's promotion of what is clearly identified as unfounded and false narratives. If you care to look through the Trump talk archives in your spare time :), and see the hundreds of times I've advocated for well-sourced and properly framed article text about unsubstantiated, false, or misleading narratives, I think it would calm your concerns that I am an editor who is likely to be soft on FRINGE.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, did you follow the links to the article talk page RE: Fringe? Shibbolethink's redacted summary in green is rather misleading, IMO. The article had long stated that Trump promoted unproven treatments. My view and the view of others there was that the insertion of "misinformation about" to modify the unproven treatments actually weakened the exposition showing this was fringe.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifico, your comment here is just showing to me that you're at the brink and blowing past basic details. That happens in contentious topics even when you are "right" sometimes and is why I am pointing this out. You're at a point that you are splitting hairs essentially claiming the lead text isn't of interest to WP:FRINGE or FTN because it's about presentation of the subject's fringe views. Step back and think about that. What you describe as "micro-tweaks" is very much something we do over at FTN quite often because we look at how best to accurately describe and summarize a BLP subject's fringe views exactly like was being requested. Things like what to cover and to how much depth in a lead statement is pretty much right up FTN's alley.
 * I'll be honest, trying to claim the lead text change isn't something squarely pertinent to FRINGE just distracts from other potential issues at the article. Don't do silly things like that and us outside editors will have an easier time helping out with other issues or problem editors. I already commented as someone uninvolved what version I thought best reflected the FRINGE perspective and needs without really even looking at who said what or past discussions. I saw the need right there as an outside editor. That's the other key point I'm trying to drive home too, be aware of how things can look, even if unintended, to those of us outside that article. KoA (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're talking way past one another. I am well aware of the importance of framing and language to support NPOV including, in the extreme, FRINGE. I would think, after you carefully considered my previous reply that you would not have thought you needed to instruct me further on fringe/NPOV issues and language. Did you see any reference to "fringe" in the talk page discussion prior to the FTN notice? I've never seen any of the editors on that thread fail to respond constructively to such concerns nor to cause them. The WP:FRINGE page is predominantly about grosser issues and the difficulty we encounter when we try to write valid and properly sourced content relating to them. The whole American Politics area is full of fringe material, but relatively little of that is of the grosser sort discussed in WP:FRINGE and I've very rarely seen such politics-related content raised at FTN. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , "shorten" merely refers to the size of the lead ( 5 7 paragraphs) and the article (as of today, 418,610 byte, 109,590 characters, 823 cites). It was my attempt at a compromise Shibbolethink characterized like this (Specifico later reverted to it, possibly in the belief that it was the stable version): So I don't see very much room for not describing Trump's promotion of HCQ and ivermectin as "promoting misinformation about unproven treatments." To avoid that because we personally think it isn't "misinformation" would be pro-WP:FRINGE original research. I also object to what appears to be an insinuation to me. These are the main space edits:, , , .  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) To be absolutely clear: "we personally" thought nothing of the kind and were confused by the edit summary challenging the stable version: while this is undoubtedly true, I'm removing it for two reasons: 1) I think it's a confusing negative-positive (naively when reading, I thought "was he promoting misinformation that tests weren't needed? That tests were needed?") and overall a relatively minor point that is clearly DUE for the body, but not the lead. Sorry for adding to all of the above. Come to think of it, it's starting to look a lot like the current state of the Donald Trump talk page.  Space4Time3Continuum2x  (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually what you’ve quoted there was me responding to statements by SPECIFICO that Trump’s statements about HCQ and ivermectin were not “promoting misinformation.”  I don’t recall you advocating there or elsewhere that such statements were not misinformation. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop suggesting that I ever said that Trump was not spreading misinformation. You insinuated that with some very tight and misleading editing of my brief talk page comment on this sentence in your green text up top, and it's quite possible that such misrepresentation of my views is now coloring the comments by at least two editors in this discussion section.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 16:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) "No, he promoted the drugs, not "information" about them. And he did not deny the validity of the tests - he said that the valid test results showing increased case numbers was only because there were increased numbers of tests being administered and called the reporting of that increase a "fake news media conspiracy"" and reverted the article text from "promoted misinformation about unproven treatments and the validity of diagnostic testing" (my wording) to "promoted unproven treatments and misinformation about testing" (Space4Time's wording)


 * 19:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC) "Also, you've ignored the point I spelled out in my edit summary and was a significant constituent of that wording -- he did not promote "misinformation" about those drugs. He caused his followers to take the drugs. He promoted the drugs -- to the point that there was an urgent shortage of Ivermectin for valid medical use"


 * 19:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC) This little bit of lead text was extensively discussed before being placed in the lead. It was fine, and it was discussed by many well-informed editors at the time -- more than once, as the talk archives show. It was perfectly fine. Like everything else on this site, it was not perfect. So it was tweaked a few times to a slight improvement, then we considered the remote possibility that the improved version might in some rare instance be misconstrued to say something ridiculous. So SpaceX addressed that concern with another little tweak. Now, many posts later, after SpaceX's fix seemed to have been accepted as a compromise solution, we find this thread engaged in lengthening this little bit, making it IMO less clear and unambiguous. I think we should use the text SpaceX devised and be done. -- Apologies to Jayron, KoA and others who've been drawn in. I'm stumped as to what this has to do with FRINGE. Lies ≠ Fringe. It's been a longstanding goal on this page to shorten it, not lengthen it.

The latter two of these three quotes were in reply to this list of sources I posted which all describe the information Trump spread and promoted re: these drugs as "misinformation".


 * I appreciate you now seem to agree that parts of what Trump said about HCQ, Ivermectin, etc was misinformation, but I was not misquoting you at the time. Do you see why my interpretation of your comments was not unreasonable ? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it was more than unreasonable it was false as was evident from my participation in that thread from the beginning and from the talk archives. I'll note further for you and for who you misled and made look nothing like the good Admin I've previously known them to be, that the top RS do indeed talk about him promoting the medications, not misinformation about them. See, e.g. this NIH publication about his dangerous promotion of these therapies. Further, now that you've made a small tempest in a teapot over things more or less unrelated to OP's complaint, it would be good for you to withdraw this complaint -- which is pretty close to a COATRACK-like spur possibly arising from frustration at not being able to control the article talk page as you might have expected. And then, after this is closed, I'd look forward to what would be most constructive (if you wish to volunteer any further time to this), which is to see my comment beneath the thread here in which I cite a lancet article that is much more useful for a summary about Trump's COVID and healthcare policies with the perspective and rigor one would expect from such a tertiary source.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's why I asked this, to which you never replied. I agree with Shibb that it definitely sounded like you were saying that he didn't promote misinformation, and that that interpretation wasn't unreasonable: Also, you've ignored the point I spelled out in my edit summary and was a significant constituent of that wording -- he did not promote "misinformation" about those drugs. I don't see how you don't see that it seemed like you were stating that he did not promote misinformation, because that's exactly what you said. Cessaune   [ talk ]   02:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You just presented a quote of half of one sentence I wrote. That misrepresents what I said, and it is misleading to readers. My entire post and my participation in that long discussion is quite clear, and its backed up with top tertiary RS and indeed you endorsed a proposal following my suggested alternative approach on the talk page in this section. But anyway, ANI is not the place for content disputes.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems several editors have taken to ignoring the initial complaints about SPECIFICO and instead turned this into a battleground based on prior disputes they've had with her. No evidence or diffs provided in their comments either. There were reasonable complaints here, but as it tends to go at this noticeboard, people are jumping at the opportunity to carry on their ideological battles. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  15:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree. I think the merits of the above proposal should be based entirely on the diffs provided in the opening comment of this proposal, and comparing those diffs to the user's past sanction history... It is likely the closer will disregard any of the following:
 * defamatory comments from past dispute participants who have not provided cogent arguments
 * laudatory comments from users who have long defended the user and do not provide any evidence to refute any standing arguments
 * any users who focus on evidence-free accusations about things outside of this proposal (e.g. tu quoque arguments against JFD, who did not author this proposal)
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Facetious comments (diffs 3.6, 3.8) help keep discussions from becoming too stiff, and an't sanctionable.

While this is true, the issue is SPECIFICO admonishing other users for being "snide" in polite comments (saying others should keep NPOV in mind is only snide in the eye of the beholder) and then being quite obviously snide against other users (extending a user's argument far beyond what that user intended, and saying they want to cut the entire article down to 3 sentences). The issue is the the double standard, combined with an overall pattern of biting newcomers who disagree with her. Individual comments like this may not be sanctionable, but in a user who has been warned about this numerous times, repeat and multiple offenses which cause the same issues should be sanctioned.

Diff 3.3 is true: merely stating that something was covered by WP:RS isn't an argument for inclusion (WP:VNOT).

I was not making a mere WP:V argument, my argument was actually WP:DUE, as shown in numerous comments of mine in that thread:. Failing to acknowledge or engage with this displays WP:IDHT tendencies, essentially arguing against the straw man weakest argument of mine, instead of what I actually said, and doing so in an uncivil way.

Diff 3.4 is also true: JFD, for all his good intentions, is inexperienced and it would have been extremely ineffective to start a non-workshopped RfC, with non-neutral prompt, and two lengthy proposed versions that would be inappropriate to "lock-in" through an RfC. Wouldn't have helped us move towards a resolution.

Again, the issue is not even necessarily what SPECIFICO wrote here, but how it was worded. It was uncivil and unnecessarily aggressive towards a newcomer who did show themselves open to feedback.

JFD was ill-advised but earnest in starting a ton of threads over relatively trivial copyedits when there was already an ongoing huge unwieldy discussion about the E. Jean Carroll addition.

JFD did not start the E Jean Carroll discussion, and as far as I am aware, the limit for BLUDGEON has more to do with what one individual user does, not the current length of the talk page when that user opens a new thread (something they cannot control).

Every comment posted on Wikipedia is meant to achieve a specific outcome, but we all do it indirectly or ineffectively at times

This is true, but we hold longtime editors to higher standards, especially ones who have been sanctioned about it numerous times. SPECIFICO made comments here which stood directly opposed to achieving consensus or working civilly with another user (JFD). That is the issue.

SPECIFICO failed to AGF, created a battleground, and wrote hurtful things to another user, all things she has been admonished about before. Hence the proposal, and the number of uninvolved users who have chimed in in support of it. Indeed, we have on display here in this section that exact unrepentant behavior from this user. They have taken none of the advice from uninvolved users to heart, and are instead digging deeper, becoming more aggressive:. Why would the community want to tolerate this from a user who has a long history of failing to listen to such advice? I have not seen the user admit they were wrong, or even could have possibly been wrong, even once in the past week among all these disputes, with diffs directly contradicting their statements. That is not the humility and civility we expect from our users.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Boynamedsue - WP:NPA and disruptive behavior
In a nutshell, Boynamedsue has accused editors at Articles for deletion/2007 Alderney UFO sighting of canvassing. Boynamedsue's premise is that some editors who ivote "delete" came there from a posting on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard regarding this AfD. The claim is essentially that such editors are biased because of this post.

Here is the url for the complete FTN discussion regarding the page now under consideration for deletion.


 * Here is the first instance accusing jps of posting to FTN "with the intent of attracting support for deletion" and "the way the notice is framed not neutral. Then Boynamedsue claims "That board is also something of a meeting point for users who identify as "sceptics", who they might reasonably believe would support their arguments." I believe the word "they" refers to jps. So Boynamedsue is not only singling out one editor, he is also perhaps smearing all participants on the FTN. Interestingly, this is only one post
 * Here at around the same time, Boynamedsue posts a notice at the top of the page supporting their belief that the AfD is now tainted by CANVASSING.
 * Here he is warned about violating AGF and not comprehending the use of WP:FRINGE..
 * Here, at around the same time, is a talk page warning about engaging in personal attacks . They replied accusing the author of the warning of engaging in BATTLEGROUND behavior.
 * Here they continue to press their belief that the AfD is tainted by the FTN post.
 * Again, pressing the same belief with a longer post, while also seeming show a misunderstanding of dealing with fringe material on Wikipedia.
 * Replying to a different editor they write: "There is very strong evidence, given the non-neutral message, the partisan forum, and the fact that of 8 commenters on this RfC, 4 have voted keep, and 4 have voted delete. All of the latter are regular posters at Fringe Theories Noticeboard."
 * And to another editor : However, the choice to link at that forum and nowhere else had a vote-stacking effect here.
 * Presses the issue with still another editor
 * Here this disruptive behavior is noted for benefit of the closer.

There are at least a couple more instances of such behavior in this AfD. . But, this post seems long enough as it is. He also accused my ivote of being tainted by CANVASSING. I can post that diff if someone wants to see it. It is just, as I said, this post seems long enough. My main concern is that this type of behavior will dissuade editors from participating in AfDs. Also, his recent editing behavior in other areas seems to be collegial and collaborative. So, I don't know why this AfD is a problem for them. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * My response to this, is simply that, according to WP:CANVASS, canvassing did occur at that page. Where canvassed votes occur, signalling this for the eventual closer is necessary.
 * The messages which constituted canvassing were the following: . These messages were left by jps.


 * WP:INAPPNOTE requires a neutral Message when advising of discussions. The first message advising the board of the page was the following "Oh dear. This one slipped past our "radar", it seems. Full of absurd credulity and terrible sourcing.@JMK who is the main author. Might be worth checking those contributions as well." the second was "Actually, you know what? (deletion nomination link).I think we should WP:TNT this...". These are not neutral messages.


 * WP:INAPPNOTE also requires the Audience to be Nonpartisan. The FTN contains many members who have an ideological commitment to the Sceptic movement. That does not make them bad editors, it does however mean that they will be more likely to vote to delete articles related to UFOs and other supernatural topics.


 * WP:INAPPNOTE Requires the Transparency. JFS did not advise that they had cross-posted the discussion to FTN on the AfD page, as would be required to satisfy this condition.


 * There are currently 5 votes to delete on the AfD, all of them are from posters who have recently posted on FTN. While nothing is wrong with the users using their judgment in this case, their interpretation differs wildly from users not members of FTN, 7 of whom so far have voted to keep based on very clear satisfaction of WP:GNG. JPS was well aware that the post would reach many people likely to support their nomination for deletion, and addressed their post as if forming part of a group.


 * It is also worth pointing out that JPS has also linked this discussion to FTN, which I do not feel to be in the interests of natural justice in a case which may lead to administrative sanctions. This notice is paired with a claim to have found discussion of this AfD on pro-UFO websites, falsely implying the two situations to be connected.


 * I would just add that, some users from FTN (though absolutely not Steve Quinn) have engaged in personal attacks and on the AfD page and on various talk pages. I have not chosen to complain about them officially but this has definitely contributed to the bad feeling on that page. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain in simple language how taking an issue to the noticeboard dedicated to those issues is canvassing? Read up on FRINGE and WP:NPOV, neither of them mean "natural justice" for this issue. That noticeboard exists for a reason and posting there for more eyes on an issue is it fulfilling it's function.  He  iro  20:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting a non-neutral message to a place where you know you will get support is canvassing. If they had posted to a range of boards who might have different opinions on this, it would have been fine. While it may not have been a deliberate violation of WP:CANVASS, it had a votestacking effect which can be seen on the AfD page. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It had the intended effect of getting editors well versed in the WP policies dealing with this kind of issue to look into it. Posting to multiple boards not concerned with this WP:FRINGE issue would have been canvassing. As I said, this was literally the board for this sissue being used correctly and for it's intended purpose. You take behavioral issues to ANI, you take vandalism to AIV, you take FRINGE to the fringe noticeboard, etc.  He  iro  20:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not the case if multiple boards are related to this question. But it was actually a reliability question in any case, there are no Fringe theories on display here. Nobody disputes the facts of the case, which is that several people claimed to have seen unusual lights in the sky. A fringe theory "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field".Boynamedsue (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not make them bad editors, it does however mean that they will be more likely to vote to delete articles related to UFOs and other supernatural topics.[citation needed] This is a vague inference that, even if true, neglects the possibility that people who hang out at FTN are simply more knowledgeable about how to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines on fringe subjects because they've been around the block a few times. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the wording in WP:FRINGE that supports that? A fringe theory "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". The mainstream view here is that 3 or 4 people reported seeing lights in the sky, which is all the article says. This text was placed here in error as I was answering two messages at once --Boynamedsue (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As above, this is not the case on this occasion. The users here are suggesting that WP:GNG can't apply to subjects that third parties may connect to Fringe Theories. When we have WP:SIGCOV of an event in the Times, Telegraph, BBC and New Yorker, trying to apply WP:FRINGE to it is a complete misuse of the policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, WP:FRINGE is applicable because of the subject matter. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What XOR&#39;easter said. UFOs are fringe, and we do not in wikivoice proclaim their existence because a few credulous newpaper reporters write a story on one supposed sighting.  He  iro  22:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does not, and should not say UFOs exist, that would be WP:FRINGE. It does not state that the reports were true. It states the reports exist, because that's what reliable sources do, and we report what reliable sources say. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE applies because the article is about a UFO sighting. It's not a guideline that magically comes into play when bizarre claims are made and then becomes irrelevant if they are removed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree. If someone claims to see lights in the sky, and it is reported in RS, that is not a Fringe claim. What wording from WP:FRINGE makes you think it applies to reliable sources making reports about claims?Boynamedsue (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:APPNOTE is clear that notifications on central locations like noticeboards are allowed. I personally am skeptical of notifications on wikiprojects (especially ones whose focus or theme is potentially partisan, since WP:INAPPNOTE forbids partisan notifications), but I don't think it's reasonable to interpret "interested in WP:FRINGE" as partisan, since that's a Wikipedia policy, and since such noticeboards are literally the textbook example of appropriate notifications. The wording could have been better but the argument that the audience at FRINGEN is partisan strikes me as absurd - it would be like saying "no, you can't notify BLPN because they're more likely to err on the side of avoiding BLP violations." We're supposed to do that! --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, in practice it has meant a case in which users from FTN, and only users from FTN, have argued that an event covered in detail by The Times, The New Yorker, The Telegraph and the BBC is not notable enough to have a wikipage. And the arguments presented have been... idiosyncratic. As I said, if a variety of relevant boards had been advised neutrally and openly, I would have had no problem. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I welcome any proposed sanctions against Sue for their disruptive behaviour in the AfD concerned on this thread. (I may propose some myself, unsure as yet.) Note that I unwatched after my comment noted as ((337)) in the original post to this discussion. I see that Sue hasn't changed his carpet bombing and disruptive behaviours since that time.
 * I note that I have been CANVASSED (Sue's peculiar definition) to the AfD 27 times on my watchlist since the AfD opened, and once (Sue again) via FTN. Isn't that awful!!! I expect to be CANVASSED afew more times before the AfD closes. Roxy the dog 08:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unsurprised you feel that way as an involved user who had made a personal attack on me and UndercoverClassicist at that AfD, calling us "WP:CIR people", and who has used uncivil language to talk about another users work, classifying it a"piss-poor article". Given your history of blocks for breaches of WP:NPA, I would be more circumspect. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * has demonstrated the effects of disruptive behavior during a discussion. They unwatched the AfD, meaning they decided to no longer participate. And this is the effect I mentioned above - that such behavior can dissuade other editors from participating. There is no excuse for essentially bludgeoning the Afd (about canvassing) or any talk page with the same rhetoric over and over. And it was the continual haranguing about canvassing that elicited negative comments aimed at Boynamedsue, who would not accept feedback from experienced editors that no canvassing took place.


 * Also, those complaints about canvassing could have been taken to another place. For instance, Sue could have opened a discussion on their talkpage and pinged as many people as they wanted to. They could have complained to an administrator on the Admin's talk page, and so on. In any case, being disruptive during any discussion does not solve any problems. And in this instance, it seems to have made matters worse. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and trying dominate via bludgeoning is inappropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that Sue has acknowledged what many of us have been saying from the beginning, that he doesn't understand what CANVASSING is, here. - Roxy the dog 08:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And on more thing, Casting doubt on another's post by accusing that editor of being influenced by canvassing is a personal attack. So there was more than one person which Sue claimed was motivated by such influences. And that assertion, indirect or otherwise, is somewhat ridiculous. Experienced editors come into a discussion with their own mind, no matter what was posted anywhere else. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I accept that a talkpage might have been a better location given the way things have panned out. Looking back, I would say that I overdid it a bit with the number of my responses to posters from FTN.


 * But I disagree with the argument that stating a user has been canvassed is an attack on them, although it might feel like it. Most canvassing is an attempt to choose an audience who will agree with you in good faith, rather than people who will conspire to subvert wikipedia. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The FTN was the correct place to post a message. I read the page at least once a week I've seen editors who support and oppose FT comment there. However, the post "Oh dear. This one slipped past our "radar", it seems. Full of absurd credulity and terrible sourcing.@JMK who is the main author. Might be worth checking those contributions as well." should have been phrased in a more neutral manner. A simple request to review the article in question and linking to the AfD was all that was needed. If the article was bad then others would have seen it without the use of loaded language. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You think that the message is somehow going to confuse people into making the wrong decision in discussions? What makes the message "non-neutral"? Is it the fact that it expressed my opinion on the absurdity of the article in question? Are we so unable to think for ourselves that we have no recourse but to pretend that patently ludicrous claims sourced to YouTube and writers who promote nonsense like "interdimensional spirits" are to be taken seriously by Wikipedia? I think people can handle a bit of stream of consciousness from the, y'know, actual humans doing the work without being totally unable to form a contrary opinion. ::rolleyes::. jps (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Asking other editors to review something is not where you post your opinions. There is a talk page for that. Once you got to the talk page you could have said that it was the worst article you had ever seen and that it should have been deleted to never return. But perception is important. A neutrally worded statement might have avoided this entire thread.
 * "Are we so unable to think for ourselves that we have no recourse but to pretend that patently ludicrous claims sourced to YouTube and writers who promote nonsense like "interdimensional spirits" are to be taken seriously by Wikipedia?" I never said that and of course Wikipedia doesn't do that.
 * "actual humans doing the work", is that as opposed to non-humans like me just sitting and playing with ourselves?
 * Mind you the actions of Boynamedsue are a not to be excused and they do range deeply into the bludgeon area and they ned to stop digging. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feh. I think we can express our opinions AND ask for review at the same time without confusing the hoi poloi. I don't think "perception is important". Who is the audience here? Ourselves. We can deal with the task of writing an encyclopedia without putting on airs. In any case, didn't mean to accuse you of being non-human. I'm saying that I see my approach as prototypically human, but, still, I'm cool with the changed signature and though I did not intend offense, I recognize that maybe you found it to be a rude impact. jps (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't offended. I saw that it could be read in more than one way. I choose to see it in a humorous way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged personal attacks
Given the OP here accuses me of personal attacks, I would like to say that if the community does eventually agree that non-neutral postings to FTN can not be canvassing, I will cease to suggest that they are and apologise. I accept that the viewpoint is so common on that board (all posters so far on this ANI case are regular posters there, and seem to hold this view) that no intention to break WP:CANVASS on JPS's part existed, even if my interpretation were correct.

I would also point out that I try to refer to users whose gender I do not know as "they", though I do sometimes slip, and write gendered pronouns where I feel someone is a particular gender. I have at no point suggested any canvassing by anyone but jps.

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that you know exactly what a "neutral" message looks like and what a non-neutral message looks like. I believe that good faith editors can disagree on this point which is why I appreciate that WP:AGF is a rule here. For my perspective, I think my message informing FTN readers about an AfD that I started (and thus that I supported) was neutral. I am happy to entertain opinions to the contrary, but I feel a little bit like this has been an exercise in WP:BLUDGEON. jps (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I recognise that the volume of my comments on that thread, and probably here, was excessive. As several users have stated that it stepped into WP:BLUDGEON territory, they are almost certainly right, and I will take it into account and try to avoid doing that in future. It also seems I was wrong about posting at FTN, uninvolved users have told me that is fine in terms of WP:CANVASS, so I accept that you did nothing wrong there. My apologies for that. I still have personal doubts about the neutrality of the audience pf that forum in practice, but as this is a minority position I won't be bringing it up in discussions on individual articles.


 * You know my opinion on the neutrality of the message, and given WP:BLUDGEON has been a factor here, you'll understand why I'm not going to enter into any further discussion on it. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Further to this, as I recognise that WP:CANVASS was not breached by linking the AfD at Fringe Theories Noticeboard, I have struck out any comments suggesting it was at that AfD. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sanction and closure proposal
Now that this appears to have calmed down, and I note some climb down on Sue's part, may I suggest the following sanctions...
 * He is permabanned from using the word "canvass" anywhere in wikispace, though using the word "notification" qualified by say the words biased or unbiased where necessary to make her point.
 * He is banned from any deletion discussion related to the Channel Isles, (Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney or Sark), in perpetuity.
 * Close this whole discussion.

I do hope some traction is found for this proposal, thanks. - Roxy the dog 16:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It is of course not up to me, but this seems a strange set of sanctions. I have accepted that posting to a central noticeboard can not be considered canvassing, and undertaken not to do so. The other part of my complaint, that there was a non-neutral message, has been upheld by several users here and at the AfD. It seems I did understand that aspect of WP:CANVASS, and understand the rest better now than before. I will of course be very careful in this regard in future.


 * As for a topic ban, that would suggest I have some bias or history of problematic editing relating the Channel Islands. This is not the case. In fact, I may be wrong, but I don't think I have ever edited a Channel Islands related article before.


 * These sanctions seem (excessively) punitive rather than preventative. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sorry if you thought I was being serious; the only serious part is the close. Again, my apologies. - Roxy the dog 16:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not the best time or place? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, too many Winston Smiths in this place, need a few more Charlie Drakes. - Roxy the dog 17:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, got to get off. Saucer-spotting on Brecqhou tonight.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Request close
It seems that all the issues have been amicably resolved. If there are no objections, I request that this thread be closed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: mass replacement of "committed suicide"
User:Damien Linnane is replacing the phrase "committed suicide" wherever it appears in the encyclopedia, on the grounds that the phrase is "stigmatizing and offensive". This issue has been discussed on the talk page at MOS:SUICIDE, where there was no consensus for this change, and the policy clearly states that there is nothing wrong with using the phrase, among various other alternatives. A brief review of the user's recent contributions suggests that this the purpose of all or nearly all of the user's recent edits, and an attempt to discuss the matter on the user's talk page proved to be unproductive, as the user indicated that his actions would continue unless there were a consensus among admins to stop it.

The user is single-handedly implementing an encyclopedia-wide policy for which there is no consensus, based entirely on his own opinion, and in his response to the talk page discussion he made clear that anyone who disagreed with him must be wrong. This is a contentious issue, and while there may be valid reasons for rewording some instances of "committed suicide" (I happen to agree that "killed himself" reads as well, perhaps better, in the article about Marcus Junius Brutus, since "committed suicide" sounds modern, although "fell on his sword" would probably have been better, since in this instance it is literally what he did), there is no good reason for mass replacement of the phrase wherever it occurs, based solely on the editor's belief that it is "stigmatizing and offensive".

My own opinion is that if there is a stigma connected to suicide, it has nothing to do with the word "committed", and there is nothing so patronizing as taking offense on the behalf of others who are not offended. But while I regard the phrase "died by suicide" as a euphemistic circumlocution that treats suicide as something that passively happens to someone, I don't search all over the encyclopedia for instances of it to replace with other wording, and I take MOS:SUICIDE as strong evidence that doing so would be considered disruptive, even without anyone having voiced their concern about it on my talk page. Since this is an issue that I know people have strong feelings about, I think it is important that the community—and its administrators, since those are the only people whose opinion the user is interested in—weigh in before the phrase is effectively banned across the entire encyclopedia. P Aculeius (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment From MOS:SUICIDE: "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. Do with this as you will. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it should be up to the article's consensus whether to use the phrasing or not. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 15:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the many external style guides that the term is stigmatizing. But, unless MOS changes, mass replacement is clearly disruptive editing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No-one is required to follow the MOS. It is a guideline. Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There was an RFC about this (I ran it) with the conclusion the language should be on a case-by-case basis. This is purely disruptive. M asem (t) 21:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's inherently disruptive to attempt to improve many articles, according to your best understanding of how to improve them.
 * Of course, if someone objected enough to be the "Very Important Person" in the WP:BRD pattern at an individual article, then one should either leave it reverted or have a discussion with that person to form a consensus about how to present that fact in the individual article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If one is going to do mass changes based one's own understanding of p&g though may be out of line with practice or other p&g, they have the onus to respond and act appropriately if they are warned if their changes are against consensus, and then engage on discussion. Its okay to be bold with mass edits without knowing those edits were against consensus...but as soon as someone waves a flag that their might be a problem, stopping and discussing is the only acceptable behavior, not continue to do the edits. Thats the issue here, given that there is a knoen.consensus around suicide langauge. M asem (t) 21:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem, please actually look at Special:Contributions/Damien Linnane. You're spouting general platitudes that are irrelevant.
 * Yes, you're right. If you have a reason to believe that your changes are actually against consensus, then you should stop and discuss.  But please note these facts:
 * P Aculeius posted the complaint on his talk page at 13:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
 * Damien replied to that complaint on his talk page at 13:55, 21 May 2023.
 * Damien has made zero further article edits involving the word committed to any article on any subject since then.
 * Now, can you honestly look at his contributions and say that he didn't comply with your view that "stopping and discussing is the only acceptable behavior, not continue to do the edits"? Maybe provide a couple of diffs showing that he didn't stop?  Or maybe please stop trying to smear him with the implication that this is at all relevant to his behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many words and phrases which a large part of the English-speaking population find objectionable, but which are still used frequently enough that a proposal for prohibition fails. We have lots of evidence that "committed suicide" is objectionable and many other organizations try to avoid it, but it's not universal enough and/or problematic enough to find consensus to "ban" it, hence the painfully awkward wording at MOS:SUICIDE. I'm not sure if it's worth formally writing down "don't say 'committed suicide'" either, but when the the strongest argument for using a phrase is "I don't see anything wrong with it" or "it's commonly used", when the same is true of less objectionable alternatives, it's a hard change to object to. MOS:SUICIDE is pretty clear that it's usually better to use an alternative, even if it's not banned.

There's nothing wrong with making a replacement like this. If Damien Linnae changes it and someone else contests it, however, it should be discussed at the respective talk page to find consensus because, well, MOS:SUICIDE says what it awkwardly says. The only question here is about whether it's appropriate to make lots of these changes. Any mass change that isn't an obvious fix is likely to ruffle someone's feathers, so my advice would simply be to slow down. Do a few, wait to see if any of them are contested, take it to the talk page if they are, and do a few more later. If P Aculeius wants to challenge them, it can happen on an article-by-article basis, but making hundreds of similar changes makes it harder. I don't know why "it's not banned" would motivate anyone to change it back, but they'd be justified in doing so per WP:BRD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And this is completely correct - we've had this discussion before. There's nothing wrong with what User:Damien Linnane is doing. If the OP wants to challenge any of their changes, they should do it on a case by case basis. I agree, however, that the use for biographies of people that died many centuries ago, there may not be as much of an issue as the recently deceased. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If they were doing it on one page, or a handful, that would be true. But they've done it on hundreds of articles over the past few days. That's a WP:FAIT situation. As you yourself imply - you believe that an editor can make a mass-edit across hundreds of pages with no more explanation or discussion than c/e, and then if someone objects they have to dispute it on a case-by-case basis? That's unworkable and contrary to WP:FAIT - anything an editor does must by default be as easy to reverse as it was to do. Obviously it is WP:BOLD to change hundreds of articles in the exact same way at once, unilaterally deciding for or against a particular wording in a wide area; but someone who objects and wants to BRD would have to (and would be, by policy, justified to) revert hundreds of articles at once. The fact that such disputes across hundreds of articles are undesirable and disruptive is precisely why WP:FAIT exists and why it essentially places the burden on the responsibility for that situation on the person who moved first, because otherwise making hundreds of edits and then demanding that other people contest each one individually before reverting them would break our processes. People shouldn't make the same or similar edits hundreds of times with no prior discussion, at least not if they have any reason to think it might be controversial (and this was an obviously controversial change, which ten seconds examining the past of relevant policy would have made obvious.) If they do insist on doing it, they should expect that their mass-edit can be just as quickly and easily mass-reverted, and when that happens they should accept that they screwed up and move on to discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it were not for MOS:SUICIDE, I would agree with you. Now (as I said above) the MOS is simply a guideline and no-one is required to follow it, however in this case unless Damien Linnane is actually degrading the articles I don't see the problem.  Let's face it, in most cases it's simply changing "committed suicide" to "killed him/herself". These are synonyms - there is no degradation or confusion here. Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:SUICIDE specifically says that The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia. Mass edits removing it are a functional attempt to remove it everywhere by WP:FAIT and clearly inappropriate. Furthermore, the RFC makes it obvious that any widespread change from one to the other would be controversial and lacks consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing a couple of percent of articles containing a particular phrase is not really a FAIT situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FIAT is not about what percent of articles are affected, but pure quantity (300 estimated here) coupled with the lack of response when notified. Thst is an example of a user taking an issue into their own hands without regards to consensus. M asem (t) 20:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Complete lack of response"? Is that what we're calling him completely stopping making that type of edit plus posting 400+ words over two days in reply to comments on his talk page, plus participating in this conversation?
 * As I recall, the ArbCom case whose resolution you cite involved multiple editors redirecting thousands of articles of doubtful notability, and the behavior, including edit warring, continuing while it was being contested here at ANI. By contrast, 250 edits by one editor, who stopped when the objection was raised, is really not comparable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The talk page shows a hostile "my way or the highway" to discontinuing the edits when told of the consensus, and that they'd only stop if admins said so. That us absolutely a FIAT attitude that we cannot accept even if the editor has a goal they think is an improvement. They probably did not get full on into FIAT territory but they are at or inside the edge of it, where we want to discourage editors from being. Ideally, anyone preparing to make a mass change should present the suggestion to the relevant talk page and make sure they have consensus first before embarking; they can start without this but then they are expected to be responsive as soon as complaints are raised. M asem (t) 22:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact that both of us show a far stronger tendency towards "my way or the highway" attitudes, I believe that if you read what was posted, Damien wasn't ever told that there is a consensus against changing these words. He was told that MOS:SUICIDE doesn't ban it, which is not the same as being told that there is a consensus against his edits.
 * Also, if you'd actually look at his contribs, you'd see that he actually was "responsive as soon as complaints are raised". I don't know how you got the impression that he wasn't.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that "committed suicide" is always the best or most desirable wording—I typically prefer "killed himself", "took his own life", or even the slightly more elaborate "fell on his sword" (at least where this is literally true, or idiomatic by context) or "made an end of himself". In some instances the changes made by the editor in question are probably an improvement.  But sometimes "committed suicide" is the simplest way to say it, and there's nothing wrong with saying it—that's what our guideline says.
 * It's frustrating having some editors appointing themselves "the language police" and expunging perfectly good constructions wherever they occur, without any particular need. A blanket replacement of the phrase with no other purpose effectively imposes a policy that the community has not agreed to and is unlikely to agree with, and it's hard to imagine anything more anti-collaborative than stating as a precondition for stopping that the admin community needs to form a consensus in order to stop it!
 * Imagine if this were any other contentious issue concerning Wikipedia policy, where your opinion differed from that of the editor making the mass changes, and insisted that he or she would not stop unless you could get the entire community to agree. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2009, and I've had lots of disagreements with other editors over wording or applying policy—but I've only referred things to ANI once or twice, and have done so now only because I think that taking this particular action for which there is no community consensus, and refusing to reconsider it without establishing such consensus against it, is detrimental to the whole encyclopedia.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I see this change as an improvement and the objections all seem to boil down to either vague procedural concerns or attempts to justify outdated language using dictionary definitions and etymology instead of actual real-world usage and understanding. We don't need a policy mandate to make widespread changes, in fact many MOS guidance encourages preferred language without requiring it. Without evidence that this is somehow causing harm, I see no problem. –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But we specifically had an RFC which failed to produce preferred language, whose closure specifically encouraged people not to make these sort of mass-changes. If someone disagreed with the closure of that RFC, the appropriate thing to do is to hold another RFC, not to try and force through their preferred wording via WP:FAIT. This isn't just some "vague procedural concern", this is central to how we resolve disputes. Being WP:BOLD and deciding to IAR is acceptable in a single article (where it can be reasonably reversed if someone objects), but not when editing hundreds of articles in a way that would cause massive disruption if someone decides to revert you; and making a plainly controversial edit only for people to say "now you cannot reverse this without disputing it one by one; it is done and can't be undone with that same ease" is textbook FAIT. WP:FAIT is extremely important, not just a random procedural hurdle. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm changing a contested term to a neutral one. It's really not complicated. For the life of me I can't understand why this makes so upset. His entire argument seems to be 'the term hasn't been officially banned yet and I don't personally see a problem with it, therefore I find the change offensive and everything should be written the way I like it'. I really think the mature thing to do here would simply be to agree to disagree. Contrary to what I believe P Aculeius is implying in his initial comment here, I am also deliberately not mass using the term "died by suicide" as it also strikes me as a euphemism. I think in my hundreds of edits I maybe used it half a dozen times when based on the wording flow it seemed appropriate. I am mass replacing "committed suicide" with "killed him/themself", with a few exceptions where that wording would be awkward. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty clear-cut case WP:FAIT behavior, and the previous Village Pump RfC noted that A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic (emphasis mine). As the closer noted, and I will echo here, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. The comments by those who personally see this as an improvement seem to be ignoring the pretty clear issue here in that mass changes were made without discussion explicitly against previous community consensus. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of changing all—or any—of the instances to "died by suicide", nor was it my intent to do so. I mentioned that alternative in the third paragraph of my report solely by way of contrast: if I took matters into my own hands according to my personal preference, I would crusade through Wikipedia replacing that absurd phrase wherever it occurs.  But I know that many editors prefer it in spite of the circumlocution, and we would simply go around arguing in endless circles.  No matter how justified I felt in my actions, they would still be disruptive precisely because I would be ignoring the consensus—in the lack of consensus—of the community.
 * What you and the other editors supporting your action fail to see is that you are imposing your viewpoint on the whole encyclopedia, just as I would be if I changed all the instances the other way. "Anything but this" is just as bad no matter which phrase you oppose, and not very different from saying "this is the only acceptable thing".  Either way requires community consensus, and that is the one thing that we can be certain does not exist.
 * For what it's worth, I might agree with your wording in many instances. What I disagree with is imposing a blanket policy on all instances and all articles, without any purpose or intention of improving the wording, besides the absolute refusal to allow the phrase "committed suicide" anywhere.  I strongly disagree with anyone who calls this a mere technical or procedural disagreement.  It is not: collaborative editing and seeking consensus to undertake contentious changes are core policies of Wikipedia, without which the entire project would grind to a halt.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've never tried to use repetition or volume to justify my edits, so I'm confused as to why you think WP:FAIT is relevant. Before this discussion was started, only P Aculeius appeared to be opposing my edits. He suggested I stop my edits because he stated he disagreed with them, whereas I stated I wasn't going to because I go by consensus instead of blindly following the suggestions lone editors give me.
 * I wasn't aware of that RFC, or that this has been an on-going source of contention on wikipedia for years. Essentially, I saw an instance of 'committed suicide', and changed it for reasons I've made clear. Without planning to do so in advance, I then went down a rabbit hole of changing it en-masse. I assumed some individual edits would be reverted, in which case I wasn't going to contest them further. Frankly, I figured if certain people felt the need to put energy into fighting to use a more stigmatising term, that was their prerogative and I wasn't going to stop them, though I also assumed most people either would not be fussed or would agree with me. Since only about 1% of my changes have been reverted, this would appear to confirm my theory.
 * Yes, the closer of that RFC did urge people not to make mass-changes, though I also note there was no ruling on whether that would be disruptive. In any case, I wasn't aware of that until now. I note the closer did mention the issue could be revisited in a year; that was more than two years ago. Working in the field of mental health, I've observed first-hand that opinions on both language and awareness of mental health stigma are progressively evolving (in the direction I happen to be advancing) with time. I think we should follow the closer's suggestion of revisiting the issue at RFC. I don't think I've done anything wrong, though I'll stop doing this on such a large scale until such time as there's a new RFC. I won't be starting an RFC immediately, though if anyone else wishes to do so I'll happily weigh in on the discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Throughout this you have repeatedly accused me of being closed-minded and not open to the possibility I am incorrect, when I've never actually stated that. I.e. "he made clear that anyone who disagreed with him must be wrong" and "you've assumed that all reasonable people agree with you, or that anyone who has experience with mental illness would agree" - Incidentally I never said the latter either, you misquoted me, I said they'd be more likely to agree. Has the irony occurred to you that by comparison, unlike me you actually have repeatedly and explicitly stated that every person who doesn't agree with your opinion on this matter is wrong? Ranging from accusing people who agree with me of not understanding the English language, to accusing everyone who supported my actions here of "fail[ing] to see" things the way you want them to? So if I (at least according to you) think all reasonable people agree with me, that's a problem, but when you explicitly say everyone who opposes you is wrong, that's perfectly balanced editing behaviour. Is that what you're trying to tell everyone? Damien Linnane (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're arguing about things only mentioned on your talk page, and not previously in this discussion. Here I'll only say that I only quoted you once, your exact words: ""I'm not going to consider stopping unless there's a consensus from administrators that this is disruptive", which response was my reason for bringing this issue here.  The only other thing that I quoted in that discussion was the unsigned "request" by an anonymous IP editor that you gave as a justification for the change: "This article should be renamed! A person cannot 'commit' suicide – it's sloppy and troubling that Wikipedia allows this!"  So you have not been misquoted.
 * This is what you said about people with experience with mental illness, which I did not quote before, there or here: "many people, especially those who have not experienced severe mental health trauma, will never think twice about the term, but it will make a difference for some", and subsequently, "As a person who works in a mental-health related role and see's first hand what effect language can have on people, obviously I do not share your opinion". I think it is fair to characterize these statements as meaning "your opinion is wrong because you don't have my experience with people affected by mental illness and/or suicide", and I regard that as patronizing because you are making blanket assumptions about people—anyone who has experience with these things will agree with you, and anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant of these concerns.
 * In fact I do have direct experience with both suicide and mental illness, but I do not consider the phrase "commit suicide" to be offensive. The fact that I don't shouldn't be the basis for you to assume that I must not have the proper experiences that have led you to the opposite conclusion; and really I shouldn't have to tell you what my life experiences are in order to justify my opinion.  You also said, "I don't understand how anyone's priority could be to keep using a term that they know is offensive to some, when there are completely viable alternatives."  I don't know how you can fail to see that you have said that "all reasonable people should agree with me", the unavoidable corollary of which is, "if you disagree with me, your opinion is unreasonable".
 * And finally, when you excise language that offends you wherever you can find it—and make this the primary purpose of editing hundreds of different articles, rather than merely rewording things incidentally while performing general edits on articles you would have worked on anyway—you are effectively saying to everyone, "you may not use this language!", which does not accord with what our policy on that topic says. That is what I mean by imposing your views on others.  You cannot turn this around and claim that I am imposing my views on others by insisting that you should not be imposing yours—if that were the case then nobody could ever ask you to stop doing anything.  I am not prescribing any particular language in any particular case; I am merely insisting that you stop telling everyone else why they can't say it the way they want, when the community has decided that the language they have chosen is acceptable.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Without wading into the issue proper, I'll just say that "died by suicide" is a lunkheaded bastardization on the order of "murder by death". If you don't like "committed", just say the person killed himself or herself. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 08:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Replacing "committed" with killed himself or herself was exactly what I was doing. P Aculeius claims to have mentioned "died by suicide" in the lead as some sort of hypothetical argument, though whether intentional or not his choice to use it in the lead is clearly giving the impression that's the term I was mass replacing. I thought the exact same thing after reading his post. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that EEng necessarily thought that's what you were doing. The confusion is an understandable one, since in the past debates over the words "committed suicide" have been inextricably intertwined with "died by suicide" as the ostensibly preferred alternative.  I stipulated above, and will do so again here, that is not what you have said—I agree with your wording in some of your edits, but I disagree with going throughout the encyclopedia replacing the words "commit(ted) suicide" wherever you can find them.  While there is often a better choice of wording, the existing language is acceptable and should not automatically be removed wherever it exists.  That is the sole purpose of this discussion.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. My opining was limited to (un)desirability of "died by suicide". <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 17:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: The full guideline says: "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide, including: died as a result of suicide, died by suicide, died from suicide, killed himself, The cause of death was suicide" (bullets converted into list). Having never weighed in on this issue before, I have to admit that, on first read, I would have read that text as encouraging use of alternatives (though making clear that "committed suicide" was not, strictly speaking, prohibited). Notably, as others have said, the closer of the January 2021 RFC said, "A minority of editors think 'commit suicide' is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it. Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found." But, from my perspective, this is all a bit of a morass. By the closer's "urg[ings]", if the phrase is replaced by an equivalent, it shouldn't be reverted, but editors also shouldn't mass replace. In other words, what was encouraged was neither a "leave the status quo" approach or a "replace every instance of the status quo" approach. Admittedly, Damien Linnane seems to have taken the latter approach, but in light of what I see as guideline ambivalence, I'd really hesitate to call that "disruptive editing".-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So just to confirm, from a policy standpoint, it would be perfectly acceptable for editors to go back and revert every one of DL's suicide-related edits? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support mass reversion, tempted to go do it myself, to the status quo, and a centralized discussion held if desired. It is not proper for one editor to make a mass style change like this. Zaathras (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually think that reverting them all is probably not worth the effort, provided that it isn't repeated. Individual editors might choose to revert the change in specific articles, which can be discussed on the relevant talk pages if needed—but as I've said several times in this discussion, in many cases the new wording is probably an improvement.  My objection was to a blanket policy of replacement, not a claim that the existing wording was always the best.  Reverting instances where the new wording is better would be counter-productive, and confusing where editors prefer the new wording in individual articles.  I'm not great with metaphors, but this is like someone having painted all the houses on a street blue.  You might want him to stop before he starts on the next street, but you don't necessarily want him to scrape off all the fresh paint.  I hope that makes sense.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the best way forward. WP:TROUT Damien Linnane for trying to force the change en masse without consensus, but individual pages can choose to revert & discuss as they see fit. If no one contests it, let it be. That said, Damien should stop pushing the changes as of now. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, my question was intended to be more theoretical than immediately practical; in this position, if all of DL's related edits were reverted in a double WP:FAIT, what would the next step be? It is obviously impractical to individually discuss every single reversion per WP:BRD (as WP:FAIT clearly explains), but that seems to be the only possible route, given the above reasoning. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In principle I think it should be done, but I would oppose doing it in this instance because the alternative wording is, as likely as not, an improvement in a significant proportion of the articles—possibly a majority—and at any rate is not likely any worse. Had it been a cut-and-paste text replacement I would favour reversion.  As long as it stops here, reverting what has already been done would do more harm than good.  P Aculeius (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support reverting all these changes and requiring discussion. DL's edits are disruptive. It's particularly egregious that they are all marked as minor edits when they are most certainly not. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I would regard rewording "committed suicide" to "killed himself" (where justified) as a minor edit. What makes this important from my perspective is that it's effectively implementing a policy against having "committed suicide" anywhere in the encyclopedia, irrespective of context.  Rewording a single phrase without changing the meaning or intention of the author doesn't seem like something important enough to worry about whether it's labeled a "minor" edit; doing the same thing across hundreds of articles with no other purpose is what elevates this from trivial to significant.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * but often the edit isn't justified. But even where it is, an edit summary that is just "ce" marked as a minor edit is misleading. The page for minor edit specifically says that a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. There's no way that DL was unaware that there was a potential for a dispute by making this change unilaterally. Assuming good faith though, now that DL knows better, he should refrain from doing the same, and we should consider mass reverting the changes. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a read of a policy called WP:AGF. I considered it minor at the time since, as noted above, the current wording of MOS:SUICIDE seems very much to encourage replacing the contested term with one of their suggested neutral ones. As far a I'm concerned, I was following what's encouraged at MOS:SUICIDE (though granted, on a larger scale than they probably intended), having seen that guideline as my first point of reference in this ongoing debate. However, I very much accept that there's a very polarising response as to whether or not mass changes is OK. As mentioned, as there's no consensus for or against, I'll stop doing it en masse, though I intend to continue changing individual pages as I see them. As the OP has repeatedly stated, many of these changes are indeed improvements. To be perfectly honest with all of you, 'killed himself' slotted in perfectly with the overwhelming majority of the changes, though in about maybe 5% of the edits, 'committed suicide' flowed well with the original sentence, and changing it probably made the wording more awkward than it was originally. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read that policy, that's why I referenced it. Yes, I believe you when you say that you didn't do this in bad faith, I just can't understand really why you did it and marked it as minor. Thank you for not doing it en masse, but please don't change individual pages as you see them until we get this all sorted out. Also, there is a good chance that this will end up being reverted en masse, so just a heads up. We'll have to see how consensus in this thread evolves. --  Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @HandThatFeeds said it best. My recommendation would be the same as his and P Aculeius's:
 * the change [was done] en masse without consensus
 * WP:TROUT Damien Linnane
 * individual pages can choose to revert & discuss as they see fit.
 * If no one contests it, let it be.
 * Damien should stop pushing the changes as of now.
 * — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My inclination is... really? You're upset about this? There's a million Wikignomes out there making small improvements to articles en masse. It's not bot editing, it's not editwarring, this is a nothingburger of an accusation. It's no more disruptive than fixing a common typo. No-one's arguing that "committed suicide" is better phrasing, or that the changed phrasing isn't at worst equally good. Several people have pointed out style guides noting that "committed suicide" is discouraged.
 * WP:TROUT to P Aculeius and anyone else complaining. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.4% of all FPs. 00:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what really needs to be noted here is that there's still no consensus as to whether my edits were disruptive or not. Though as mentioned, as I now know it's polarising, I will indeed stop. Believe it or not, I do not like upsetting people; while I'm sure my opponents will consider this naive or misguided, my desire to help people was actually my motivation for this in the first place, since I know very well some people are very hurt by this term, and neutral completely inoffensive alternatives exist.
 * If the edits are reverted en masse, as one editor seems insistent on, I intend to WP:BRD a good many of them, citing the current wording of MOS:SUICIDE as my justification. While I do admit there are indeed exceptions, I genuinely believe most of the changes are improvements even at a semantic level, completely irrespective of whether or not the term is offensive. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I STRONGLY urge you not revert them if you get reverted en masse. You're just asking for a topic ban at that point. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I STRONGLY urge you to read things more carefully in the future. I never said I would revert them, and I have no intention to. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * People are upset because WP:FAIT is actually extremely important. Editors in controversial topic areas, who feel strongly about the things they're editing, are naturally going to do whatever policy allows to fix what they believe to be problems in Wikipedia; and if FAIT edits become an accepted tool in the toolkit for "fixing problems", then it would ultimately lead to widespread disruption. That is why it is important to nip it in the bud and make sure that things like this aren't allowed or encouraged; we cannot say "oh, yes, it's fine to make a mass-edit with no consensus and then demand a clear consensus to revert you" and not expect it to have long-term problems. Nothing drastic or serious needs to happen here - I don't think the edits even need to be reverted (though in one respect it would be good if they were, since every time a FAIT edit succeeds with no consequences it encourage people to do the same thing again), but we do need to at least speak with a clear voice that what Linnane did was inappropriate and shouldn't be repeated. This is particularly true in places where there's a lack of a clear consensus in either direction, because it could lead to a breakdown where editors say "well, I can't get a consensus to make this mass edit, but nobody will be able to reach a consensus to revert or sanction me, so I'll just fire away!" - and if that's repeated then controversial topic areas will rapidly destablize as mass edits with no consensus behind them pile up to enforce particular wordings across multiple articles. The only way to avoid that is for people to be willing to say "your individual edits aren't the problem; the way you did it is the problem." Policy and practice do matter when editing on controversial topics, at least if we want to avoid them becoming a mess of multi-article revert wars. --Aquillion (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Revert all, Selectively revert as needed we had multiple, long, well-planned and formulated, and well-attended RFCs on the topic, as a result of this very sort of disruption, and yes, considering that history, the mass replacement is WP:FAIT and disruptive behavior. And to those who belittle the thread, the feelings expressed on all sides in those RFCs (and in reliable sources discussing the controversy over the terms) are not something to belittle.  Apparently the topic raises a lot of sentiment, and to make mass changes as a fait accompli to override that consensus is disruptive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * striking, new response below. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And to measure the scale of the disruption, I attempted to count the number of articles where the WP:FAIT has been applied and gave up ... it is hundreds if not five hundred ... hard to tell. This is pure disruption, which the RFC closer specifically suggested not to do.  Reverting all of this will be quite a chore, and having to revisit the disruption on articles I experienced in the runup to the well-attended RFC does not sound fun or productive.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only will it be a chore, it sounds like Damien Linnane plans to just revert them back.... -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocks are preventative. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, I was about to say that if he does that he'll be flirting with a block, but I didn't want to since I'm not an admin. Glad I'm not the only one thinking that, though. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think Damien Linnane said that. By "BRD" I believe they meant they were bold, their edits were reverted, and so they will proceed to discuss this further on various article talk pages. Right? Nythar  (💬-🍀) 01:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...Maybe? That's not how I read it, but maybe I'm just failing to retain good faith. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clear you have a massive issue with assuming good faith. I very clearly said I would BRD many of the reverts. This involves starting a discussion on the article's talk page. So I boldly changed the articles, you're proposing reverting them. The next step is discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that if people mass reverted you, you would start a discussion rather than an edit war? OK. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He's also said things like I assumed some individual edits would be reverted, in which case I wasn't going to contest them further, which you must have overlooked, if you thought there was any chance of him edit warring over this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the above post. Your repeated refusal to read things carefully before commenting, hurling completely unjustified accusations and assuming bad faith in general has been a real hindrance to this discussion, and I'd argue it has also backfired to the point of damaging the credibility of anything you say from hereon. I've learned something from the experience of this entire discussion regarding how to improve my own edits in the future, I really hope you can also acknowledge the mistakes you've made and do the same. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you've participated in just one of those discussions (as I did, in the runup to the RFC), you know that 500 of them is precisely what the RFC sought to avoid. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By this count, closer to 300, and all marked as minor edits, no less. Ping  an RFC regular, who was also instrumental in formulating and developing the RFC over a long period of time, to assure we would avoid a garbage in/garbage out RFC. It was not a casually-thrown-out-there RFC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My explanation for marking the edits minor is clearly explained above. Even the creator of this discussion doesn't support mass reversion, on the grounds they consider many of the changes positive. I really think mass reversion of edits that aren't individually considered problematic is not the answer here. If I had of only done this to 30 articles instead of 300, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wasn't ignoring the previous RfC consensus when I started this as I didn't know it existed. As I explained, I saw something I thought was problematic, decided to fix it, then went on an unplanned spree mass changing it. I assumed some people would revert individual edits, but I really didn't think it would strongly upset anyone. I'm replacing a contested term with an uncontested one. I considered it WIKIGNOME work. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it's a lot closer to 250 edits that are contested than it is to 300. There's many other edits spread throughout the ones that are now contested, such as me removing other terms like "failed suicide" (example ) which MOS:SUICIDE clearly says is a term that should not be used. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So now you're aware of the RFC (and the many before it), and yet you still say "I'm replacing a contested term with an uncontested one". Darn right "if [you] had only done this to 30 articles instead of 300, we wouldn't even be having this discussion"; but you did (about 250 times by your count).  So perhaps you can solve the dilemma (aggravated by the minor edit flag which means many of these edits will escape detection by other watchlisters) by self-reverting rather than leaving a fait accompli and further messes for the community to clean up.  It seems a simple way of eliminating the problem you've created, even if you did that unwittingly and in good faith.   A lot of historical discussion and many prior RFCs went into that guideline, and repeating all of those (often acrimonious) discussions across hundreds of articles is not a desirable outcome. If others feel strongly about any given article, leave it for those others to sort with source-based discussions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dam right I'm still saying I'm replacing a contested term with an uncontested one. That's a point many of my opponents seem to have missed along the way. MOS:SUICIDE lists "killed himself" as an uncontested term to use instead of "committed", which they note is contested. Nobody here has tried to argue that "killed himself" is a bad term in general. The issue people seem to have is that I did a mass replacement when an existing discussion I wasn't aware of existed.
 * Nice try, but I won't be self-reverting, because I don't think I've created a problem. There's no consensus there. Many people in this discussion agree with the changes. I considered this issue resolved and was happy to follow the recommendations of and, both of whom recommended not doing a mass-revert. I guess the consensus we all reached on how to move forward didn't work for you though, as evident by your insistence we take a different approach, that even the original editor who complained about my edits does not recommend. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, my problem with calling this a fait accompli is that this phrase still appears in about 25,000 articles. He's changed about 1% of them, and 99% of them remain in the mainspace.  Sure, if he kept doing this, at this speed for an entire year, he'd probably eventually get rid of nearly all of them.  But as another editor said above, this seems like a nothingburger.  It's just 1% of relevant articles.  The committed phrase still appears in about five times more articles than killed himself language.  There is no real risk of a few hundred articles making a noticeable difference in either direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem here is mass editing of a contentious change. That is all. P Aculeius's view's that people who think "commit suicide" is stigmatising and offensive are stupid should not be part of their argument here. Indeed, at AN/I, we should not be concerned with what individual editors views on this matter are. That an editor is making edits "based entirely on his own opinion" is not a problem, P Aculeius, as we write in WP:OUROWNWORDS all the time. The problem is that Damien should have been (and certainly now is) aware that the terminology here is contentious and that mass change is likely to lead to people arguing for blocks or topic bans. User:Rhododendrites as usual said a lot of sensible things. To answer their question I don't know why "it's not banned" would motivate anyone to change it back, the answer is a kind of wonky-libertarianism combined with anti-woke politics, which insists that words that many people find problematic must be retained in some kind of king Canute fight against language change.
 * Damien, the problem with mass editing like this is it has a knee jerk response from language conservatives who then end up watchlisting articles with those words and sit on them, reverting any change by any editor and claiming a consensus for the existing text that doesn't exist. If instead you had improved the biographical entries by rewriting a whole paragraph with up-to-date information and sources while at the same time using alternative words for suicide, nobody would have batted an eyelid. So it isn't the word substitution that is the problem but it is how you went about it.
 * Editor behaviour issues on "commit suicide" are not going to go away. There are enough people who come here and edit in good faith who find that phrase problematic that we aren't going to stop this happening and nobody is going to win any RFC insisting it must always be retained. Given that we have several alternative terms that don't have issues, I think that from a purely disruptive-minimising point of view, the project should accept that "commit suicide" is not worth the hassle to fight for, and encourage some alternatives. I know that means that those who aren't offended by it have to allow the woke editors to win, but if you are willing to swallow that bitter pill, the project could concern itself with more productive arguments than this. But that's a decision for another RFC. Trouts to P Aculeius and Damien Linnane. -- Colin°Talk 09:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Duly accepted . I think that's the smartest summary anyone has given here so far. I really hope we can all just wrap this up now, as per the suggestions of HandThatFeeds and shibbolethink.
 * In retrospect I feel incredibly naive for thinking this wasn't going to be contentious. As I've repeatedly said, I expected a handful of individual reversions (which I did indeed get), but I honestly didn't think anyone would be bothered enough by this to start a discussion about it. Rest assured I won't ever be doing this again; the subsequent debate isn't worth my time and I suspect it isn't worth the time of anyone else here either. I'm now going to be going back to the uncontested WIKIGNOME edits I've been making for literally the last 15 years. They give me less of a headache afterwards. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed everything I've said in this discussion, and nowhere have I stated or implied that "people who think "commit suicide" is stigmatising and offensive are stupid". In fact I haven't said anything about "people who think..."  The closest I've come is to say that the word "commit" doesn't create a stigma—the stigma is about suicide—and that a popular alternative, "died by suicide", is nonsensical because it implies that suicide is something that passively happens to people, like diabetes or cataracts.  Or, as someone involved in a past RFC put it, we might say "he killed himself", but not "he was killed by himself."  But that still isn't calling anybody stupid—that's entirely your invention.
 * And you're misstating my position, which I think I've made clear several times, by saying that there's nothing wrong with someone making edits "based entirely on his own opinion". I've said repeatedly that the issue is that he's changing Wikipedia policy by eliminating the phrase "committed suicide" wherever it occurs "based entirely on his own opinion", when the consensus of the community was not to do so—checking out the 2021 RFC, which linked to two others and apparently followed a series of discussions of this topic going all the way back to 2004, I see that 53 editors voted to "allow" or "continue to allow" committed suicide, 5 to "disallow", and 8 something neutral, such as "follow what the reliable sources say", which you could interpret as "allow", but not as easily "disallow".  I had no idea that the RFC had been so one-sided!.
 * This discussion has nothing to do with "wokeness" or "anti-wokeness", and I don't know why you're bringing it up if not to disrupt the discussion with irrelevant but potentially inflammatory accusations—such as dismissing my comments for allegedly viewing people as "stupid" and or thinking that editors aren't supposed to be editing articles based on their own opinions—these are straw men constructed by you to justify what a clear majority of contributors to this discussion consider disruptive editing. You can keep your trout.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opening statements about "committed" not being stigmatising and your little rant about people who complain about this being apparently so patronising that there is "nothing", absolutely "nothing" more patronising, for they have invented something to be offended by. Please leave that kind of "People who disagree with me are not just wrong but also very stupid/silly/foolish" argument for Twitter, not ANI. There are people (and organisations) who take a view different from yours and on Wikipedia we have to find a respectful way of getting along with each other. Throwing insults at ANI deserves a trout.
 * Yes you keep claiming Damian is "changing Wikipedia policy". Those are your words and a rather odd way of describing editing article pages. The problem is you talk about Damian's "own opinion" but just can't see the elephant in the room, which is "your opinion" that "committed suicide" is an entirely inoffensive term and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Your mistake, both here and on Damian's user talk page where you raised the problem, has been to argue with him and us that the arguments against "committed suicide" are wrong in your opinion. That just opens your position up for disagreement (particularly when you've taken the anti-authority stance that all those mental heath organisations are "patronising" fools). Stick with the "mass edits of a contentious nature are bad" position and you wouldn't have needed that trout. -- Colin°Talk 14:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't be bothered to read what people actually said, don't stick your trout in their faces with personal attacks, such as who I supposedly think are "stupid" or "fools" or calling my arguments "rants" and saying that I deserved to be slapped for bringing what you yourself admitted was disruptive behavior here in the first place. I also never said anything about "inventing something to be offended by": I said that it was patronizing to claim offense on behalf of other people who aren't offended, which is what DL said when he (not "mental health organisations") indicated that the reason why some people (such as myself) aren't offended by "committed suicide" is because we don't have experience with "severe mental health trauma"—a false and insulting assumption to make about people merely because they disagree with the phrase being offensive or stigmatizing.
 * You keep bringing up the words "own opinion" as if some abstract concept of agreement or disagreement is what this discussion is about, rather than one person deciding what phrases are or aren't acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Imposing one's opinion on the rest of the encyclopedia is fine because it's only someone's opinion that it's wrong to do so—what tortured logic!  Wikipedia policy is that "committed suicide" is acceptable language to describe the act of killing one's self; deciding to eliminate it wherever it occurs is a change of policy implemented by one person.  It's not merely "editing article pages", as you claim, stating that finding a problem with it is "rather odd".
 * Make up your mind: are the people who disagree with you "wonky libertarians", "anti-woke politicians", or "anti-authority"? Why bring politics into an argument about imposing your semantic views on others against community consensus in the first place?  You could have taken the opportunity to de-escalate the discussion instead of introducing all these mutually-inconsistent straw men.
 * And to return to the first point, if you can't be asked to read what people have said, don't argue with them. I never once said "People who disagree with me are not just wrong but also very stupid/silly/foolish" or anything similar.  This is a rude re-interpretation of what I said DL was arguing: that anyone who has experience with "severe mental health trauma" would agree with him, and "I don't understand how anyone's priority could be to keep using a term that they know is offensive to some, when there are completely viable alternatives."  He was arguing that any reasonable or sensitive person must agree with him—and that therefore anyone who disagrees with him is unreasonable and insensitive.  You've taken his words and put them into my mouth, and slapped me around for it—all the while smugly slinging your trout at me (three times so far by my count) simply because I brought this to ANI.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is our guideline (but not policy) that the committed language is accepted (but not preferred). Changing 1% of of articles to from accepted-but-dispreferred language to accepted-and-better language is not "a change of policy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'd refer to it as "dispreferred". -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline makes it very clear its not the preferred language, as have the writers of the guideline. If you're refusing to accept that, it shows a great lack of respect for our guidelines. If (and I really hope this isn't the case) the only reason for your above post is voicing your disapproval of the word dispreferred, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dispreferred (yes, a real word), I'll please ask you to stop being petty and find something more constructive to add to Wikipedia. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline does not say it's disfavored. All the guideline says is that other phrases exist and are valid. Either language is fine, and there is no reason to change existing articles. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually the guideline notes the contention the word has also caused, then provides the alternative non contentious options, but you have a consistent history at this discussion of not acknowledging anything that doesn't suit your purposes. Feel free to have the last word because I'm done talking to you. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, now you're casting wp:aspersions. Got it. And no, the guideline just says that other alternatives exist. It does not say they should be used. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Can I just suggest that, if anything, "committed suicide" should not be used on recent deaths? If any of DL's changes were BDPs, it would be reasonable to keep them. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously I agree, but I think that's a moot point. By my count, we've got three users stating they are in favour of mass reversion (Rockstone, Zaathras, and SandyGeorgia). Aquillion was also very opposed to my edits so while he did not explicitly ask for that, I expect he would also support that. By comparison, four users are explicitly not in favour (P Aculeius, HandThatFeeds, shibbolethink and myself) and an additional four editors voiced varying levels of support/defence for my actions (Black Kite, Adam Cuerden, Rhododendrites and Jerome Frank Disciple); accordingly I think it's very safe to say they also oppose mass reversion. So this discussion resulting in a consensus in favour of mass reversion seems incredibly unlikely.
 * As mentioned, I'd like to move on. I don't intend to keep manually checking this discussion, so ping me back here if you need me. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me add my voice to the arguments against mass reversion. I think that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It was disruptive to mass edit the text but nobody (AFAICS) thinks the articles are now worse, and a minority might agree they are improved. So we're in a situation where a mass reversion seems to be attractive solely to teach Damien (and others) a lesson, as a reaction to bad behaviour. Well maybe that lesson needs taught but we can do that with sanctions or words, rather than disrupting the project with a couple of hundred edits to put back terminology that many editors and most mental health organisations would rather wasn't used in the 21st century. It would be different if lots of editors had strong opinions that the previous version was clearly superior, but in all the discussions about this terminology nobody has seriously advanced that argument other than complain about some clunky variants. -- Colin°Talk 13:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * meet Colin, who was also active in that RFC and other language issues. I have struck my revert all and replaced it to be more in line with the positions I took during the formulation and in the RFC, and based on Colin's reasoning that doing so at this point could lead to exactly what we sought to avoid when formulating the RFC (protracted disruption and ongoing disputes).  I trust you are now aware why your good-faith "minor" copy-editing can be viewed as disruptive, and we shouldn't discount that just because "it's only a MOS guideline" (such statements contributed to my knee-jerk saw-this-thread-in-the middle-of-the-night reaction, as someone who was invested in helping formulate an RFC to avoid just this situation).  In line with what Colin has explained, I hope you've read my examples at the RFC of how you might have gone about really improving those articles rather than the sub-optimal results of mass editing, because those examples might provide ideas if you continue in this content area. Robin Williams continues to be ungrammatically awkward, but my solutions at dementia with Lewy bodies and Lewy body dementias have held over several years now. (Perhaps while I have your attention, I can entice you to focus copy editing skills on this bit of insulting language, which isn't the subject of multiple contentious RFCs.)   Two thoughts/reminders:  1) Colin and I have both well experienced the nasty side effects of fait accompli editing, and I was reacting in my initial response more to that than to any specific language; fait accompli editing has the nasty side effect of becoming self-perpetuating against consensus, and in the examples Colin and I are familiar with, those effects have continued a decade after the fait accompli was allowed to stand and was subsequently not addressed by an arbcase.  Hence my knee-jerk reaction to want it undone was more related to past bad experience which lingers. 2) The "only a guideline" reasoning in this thread ignores that fact that many a contentious arbcase has resulted from MOS fanaticism, so before ignoring a MOS guideline in mass editing, one is best advised to look into the background.  In this case, as you now know, it has been quite contentious.  If we can at least get other editors to understand that, perhaps we won't have to be back here again for a similar MOS matter.   Sorry to ping you back to a discussion that you have left and is winding down, but I thought you'd want to know I had struck. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries Sandy, that's the kind of ping I can live with. :) And yes, I've definitely learned a lot from this experience and will keep this in mind for future editing.
 * I think more than a few people here have been triggered regarding my edits, which was never my intention. I apologise for unintended stress endured by anyone as a result of my actions. I myself was triggered when P Aculeius first commented on my talk page, as his comments included a completely false accusation that I was changing categories, and cited no precedent for why I should stop other than that he personally disagreed with them. This part isn't his fault as I don't think he knew about the RfC either, but I wish someone had shown me that because had I known about it, I would have stopped. And yes, I'm sure one of my opponents will argue I should have searched myself, but before this discussion, I honestly didn't think any Wikipedian would go out of their way to make sure a controversial term took preference over one that the relevant guideline itself supplies as a neutral alternative.
 * And yes, thank you for making me aware of that disgustingly sexist term. I'm shocked to see that's still written in this day and age. I will indeed add that to my list of things to look for. It makes me very happy to leave articles looking better than I found them, which has been my only (granted, unsuccessful at times) intention through all of this. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the usual ANI experience, it has been a pleasure to "meet" you here, and I hope we can all move on now. My apologies for letting my knee get the best of me :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd already addressed this, and I don't see why it matters that you were changing article titles, not category titles, but fine, I'm sorry I mistakenly said "category". You're correct in that I didn't cite "precedent" for why you should stop.  I cited and linked to MOS:SUICIDE, which I thought was self-explanatory, and which cites the 2021 RFC immediately following the words "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia".  Kindly stop assuming ignorance on the part of those who disagree with you: I don't disagree with you about "committed suicide" being offensive due to my lack of knowledge or experience with mental health or suicide, and I didn't point you to MOS:SUICIDE because I was unaware of the RFC.
 * And I'm not "going out of my way to make sure a controversial term takes preference over one that the relevant guideline itself supplies as a neutral alternative." The whole argument, from beginning to end, is that you shouldn't be replacing the wording wherever it occurs on Wikipedia, when the guideline clearly states that it is not proscribed, and the community overwhelmingly decided against doing exactly what you were doing—and as it happens, explicitly discouraged editors from taking it upon themselves to do so.  I've said repeatedly that the changes will have been improvements in many instances—the only thing I objected to was making a blanket policy of replacing the phrase "committed suicide" wherever it occurred, without regard to context, based solely on your belief that it is offensive (and I'm not saying that you're the only person who believes it—but you're the one making the edits based on what you believe should be done).  P Aculeius (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @P Aculeius, I notice that you wrote above that there is no good reason for mass replacement of the phrase wherever it occurs, based solely on the editor's belief that it is "stigmatizing and offensive".
 * I want to know: Since when is the widespread view in reliable medical sources "solely...the editor's belief"?
 * There are zero reliable sources that prefer "committed suicide". I have found a few sources that accept it as an equal option, but even these tend to note that other people find it stigmatizing, offensive, or upsetting.  I have found many reliable sources that reject this phrase, and almost all of them give its stigmatizing or offensive nature as their primary reason for doing so.
 * Why are you characterizing the widespread view of reliable sources as just one editor's purely personal opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are misreading what I said: I did not say he was the sole person who believed it. I said that his belief was the sole reason for his actions.  It was not done in the course of regular editing, since it was, in most instances, the only thing that was changed.  It was not because the phrase was inaccurate, or unidiomatic, or did not fit the tone of the specific article in which it occurred (except to the extent that one believes that, being offensive, it never fits the tone of any article).  The editor's feeling that it is never appropriate and should occur nowhere in Wikipedia is the sole reason for the edits.  The accuracy of that statement does not change because other people who did not make the edits share the same belief.  And the purpose of this discussion is that no matter how strongly you believe something or how many other people share that belief, you cannot force everyone else to live within the strictures of that belief, when there is a clear community-wide consensus against doing so.  It violates core policies of Wikipedia, including obtaining consensus to make controversial changes (in this case, to the Manual of Style), collaborative editing, and maintaining a neutral point of view (notwithstanding the argument here that if you don't find the wording offensive, then your point of view isn't neutral).  And lastly, I would ask again, is there anything that I have said, here or on the editor's talk page, that changes whether removing the phrase from hundreds of articles based on the belief that it should not occur anywhere in Wikipedia is or is not disruptive editing?  P Aculeius (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, he and basically all the reliable sources believe this is not the best possible language, and now we're supposed to believe that's a problematic motivation? This is not sensible.  That kind of "logic" could justify not fixing grammar errors, because, hey, you made that edit solely because you (and all the reliable sources) believe that correct grammar is a good thing for an encyclopedia.  I think your justification is poor.
 * I notice that you have repeatedly quoted the MEDMOS line "is not banned" as if that meant something positive. In the interests of clarity, and speaking as the primary author of that section of MEDMOS:  When I wrote the words "is not banned", I did not mean anything even remotely like "is the community's preferred language and must be preserved".  I meant "is not banned".  I want you to read that sentence with something like the hovertext from https://xkcd.com/1357/ in mind:  It "is not banned", just like people have a free speech right to express views that are literally not illegal.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not what I've been saying—not remotely! I have never argued that the reason the editor shouldn't have removed "committed suicide" from 250 (or more) articles was because his opinion is wrong.  What I have been saying since the beginning is that one editor is not entitled to decide what language is and is not permitted in Wikipedia—particularly when we have a policy indicating that the language he will not permit is permitted—and community discussions going back to 2004 demonstrating that people don't want this done!  Surely it goes without saying that if the results of such a discussion overwhelmingly oppose prohibiting or replacing language wherever it occurs, then one editor attempting to do it on his own is disruptive.
 * I have not been repeatedly quoting anything—except for language that has been misattributed to me in order to argue that I am wrong, when in fact it was said by other people to support the opposite position! I have never argued that the language "must be preserved everywhere".  There is a huge difference between "must be preserved everywhere" and "should not be eliminated everywhere".  Please stop creating straw men by attacking nonsensical arguments that I'm not making! — Preceding unsigned comment added by P Aculeius (talk • contribs)
 * One editor making an edit to a small minority (~one percent) of articles using the committed language is not a case "deciding what language is an is not permitted". And again, MEDMOS is a guideline, not a policy.
 * We don't actually have a consensus, overwhelming or otherwise, to never replace the committed language. I noticed above that your explanation (in your 13:56, 23 May 2023 comment) of the most recent RFC was just a vote count.  That's simplistic and leads to false understandings.  While there were some knee-jerk responses in that RFC, mostly of the "how dare anyone tell me what to say!" variety, a lot of people were trying to think through the complexities of it.  The RFC concluded that it's still okay to copyedit these articles.  There is a consensus not to prohibit the committed language, but there was not a consensus to preserve any existing instances.  This means:  It's okay to remove the committed language.  There is also a consensus that, as a purely behavioral matter, we don't want editors rapidly removing all ~25,000 uses of that language.  This isn't because we think the language needs to be kept, but because we expected it to result in someone (it turned out to be you) to run off to ANI with a complaint that someone else had a different opinion about how to write about suicide.  Okay:  We're here.  We weren't successful in preventing another round of drama over this.  And I'm telling you, personally, as a person who has now expressed concern about others' edits in this subject area more than once, and not just about the committed language:  Please stop worrying about this.  This time, someone changed 1% of articles in the direction that they'll probably end up ten years from now anyway, and he stopped the minute you told him it was controversial.  It's just not that big a deal.  If you (or anyone else) want to do something useful about suicide-related content, please do!  I suggest doing something important, like removing (or citing) unsourced claims.  But fussing over whether someone prefers the blunt killed himself over the disputed committed suicide or the possibly euphemistic took his own life isn't really useful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're dragging this over here, except that nothing else said about me is actually relevant to this discussion, so I wouldn't expect this to be either. I'll just supply some quotes:
 * • Oxford English Dictionary: Suicide: the or an act of taking one's own life...
 * • Webster's Third New International Dictionary: suicide: 1 a. the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally...
 * • Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: suicide: 1a. the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally...
 * • The American College Dictionary: suicide: 1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
 * • Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary: suicide: 1. The intentional taking of one's own life.
 * • The New Grolier Webster International Dictionary: suicide, One who intentionally takes his own life; the intentional taking of one's own life...
 * • The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition: suicide: 1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
 * • Black's Law Dictionary: suicide: 1. The act of taking one's own life.
 * In the interests of fairness, I note that the American Heritage Dictionary and Webster's New World Dictionary used different language. Now, if you're going to argue that the definition of suicide is a euphemism because The Free Dictionary's website erroneously calls it one, then more power to you.  But don't, don't, tell me as you did here that I shouldn't even be asking a disinterested party to consider adding the phrase to the list of expressly allowed alternatives while this discussion of a different issue involving a different phrase is ongoing, or "maybe even this year", because you do not have the right to tell people what opinions they may have or what suggestions they may make civilly and respectfully in other forums or when they are allowed to do it!  P Aculeius (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:P Aculeius, while I agree with you that this phrase is not a euphemism and that The Free Dictionary (hardly the best dictionary) got this wrong, this was already discussed over at the guideline talk page, a discussion you and I and WAID were already part of. I'm not quite sure why you think it wise to post at ANI a long list of dictionary definitions just to pick holes in an aside WhatamIdoing made. This kinda makes it look like your continued purpose here is to be argumentative rather than focus on a problem that needs administrator intervention. We don't need administrators to agree with you about words, we don't need administrators to agree with you that some people are patronising, and so on. All you needed to have said was editor X is making mass changes and these are contentious and continuing to do so is likely to cause disruption. Everything else you have contributed is not helping. That you are beginning your replies to multiple editors with "That's not what I said" suggests perhaps you aren't communicating at 100% efficiency. You raised an issue, it has been dealt with, perhaps move on before you make an administrator think you are the problem that needs to be dealt with here? -- Colin°Talk 08:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'll add that if you were shocked or upset by the fact that I referred this to ANI—and I wouldn't blame you, I can see how that would be distressing if it hasn't occurred before, or maybe even if it has—I only did so because you stated "I'm not going to consider stopping unless there's a consensus from administrators that this is disruptive." This seemed to be the proper forum—and perhaps the only way—to achieve that.  I've never asked for or suggested any punishment—not even a trouting, though someone else here is a veritable fishmonger—nor even agreed fully with a mass reversion, for reasons I've stated more than once.  I just want the mass replacement to stop, with the recognition that other people are just as entitled to their opinions regarding the phrase "committed suicide" as you are.  It may not be the wording I choose in any particular instance, but I and many other people—evidently a large majority of editors in the 2021 RFC—object to being told that they can't use it, or that if they do so, they are being insensitive and offensive.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to point out a factual error in your above comment, but after reading over your replies to me, and everyone else that has criticised your behaviour, there's a clear reoccurring theme that you cannot accept the possibility that you have done anything wrong or acted in a manner that was not the entirely the appropriate course of action at all times. Based especially on your replies to and  (though also the fact you completely ignored other criticism), I've reached the unfortunate conclusion there's nothing constructive to gain from trying to converse with you. Accordingly, I will not respond to any further comments you make here. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good, because I haven't done anything wrong, or acted inappropriately in referring this to ANI—mistakenly saying that you renamed categories rather than articles doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion, and frankly, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether my opinions are wrong, whether I'm insensitive, ignorant, or the worst person in the history of the world. It doesn't matter if you disagree with every point I've made and every word I've said.  None of that affects whether the actions I brought here were disruptive.  Neither does any reply to this post picking apart other things I've said here or in any other talk page in order to make it all about me, instead of about whether it was appropriate to replace "committed suicide" on 250 pages, and declare that you would not stop unless there were a consensus among administrators that it was disruptive.  Every other argument that's been made here is a distraction, and can be safely disregarded.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aquillion was also very opposed to my edits so while he did not explicitly ask for that, I expect he would also support that. No, that's not what I want. The entire problem is that these sort of mass-edits in a controversial area without a clear consensus are disruptive; reverting them all is only going to compound the disruption. However, if someone did mass-revert you, I do not think they would have to obtain consensus first - obviously, you didn't obtain consensus for your edits; it is textbook WP:FAIT for you to then demand a consensus to undo them. You were WP:BOLD, and BRD applies; if someone reverts you, the resulting disruption, while regrettable, is equally your fault. Indeed, you said that so this discussion resulting in a consensus in favour of mass reversion seems incredibly unlikely, to me, makes it clear that you are trying to push through your preferred edits by FAIT. What I want isn't a reversion (the actual language isn't the real crux here); what I want is a clear acknowledgement from you that your edits were a mistake, and an unambiguous agreement not to make controversial mass-edits in the future without seeking prior consensus. If you don't agree, then I want an understanding that regardless of how you feel about it, and regardless of your opinion of your own actions, if you repeat this again then I'll seek some form of formal sanctions (probably a topic-ban from the area in which you insist on trying to force through your opinions using WP:FAIT.) It is vital that you understand that a failure to reach a consensus on your edits is not an endorsement of the flat, unambiguous misconduct you demonstrated by making them, and that you understand that repeating mass-edits of this nature will get you sanctioned. We decide widespread wording in controversial areas where there is clear disagreement among editors through consensus-building, compromise, and discussion, not by one editor making mass-edits with no consensus and then declaring that a consensus is required to undo them. --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your position on mass-reversion. The only reason I mentioned you in that previous comment is that I thought it would be biased to not include the opinions of people opposing me when summarising the arguments thus far. Contrary to the many conclusions that have been jumped to about me, I am trying to be impartial and count everyone's opinion. Speaking of jumping to conclusions (and assuming bad faith), in answer to your accusation, no, I'm not trying to push through my preferred edits by FAIT, if you read my comments I was trying to save the other editor time by pointing out his request appeared to by redundant. Some of us are trying to wrap this up and move on.
 * It's unfortunate that you've returned here yet clearly have not read everything written since your last post. I've repeatedly made it very clear this isn't going to happen again, so I feel your comments above regarding that are just unnecessarily re-opening issues that were already resolved in your absence. Specifically, your threats of topic-bans for behaviour that I've long agreed to stop seems not only completely redundant, but nonconstructive and not conducive to resolving this issue. If you're not ready to move on and want to keep dragging this out, please at least read everything written in your absence. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than saying "I've said this before, you jerk", the constructive thing to do is say "Yes I commit to blah blah blah". --50.234.234.35 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than taking other people's comments out of context to insult them, how about we end this discussion here, as there is nothing further to say on the matter. The mass changes have stopped, no Admin action is necessary, and dragging this out further is just beating a dead horse. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

For SPA/SPI attention
. There's a brand new account,, which has been created for the sole purpose of mass reverting the edits. Is this a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA or WP:SOCKPUPPET (or all of the above?) I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that whoever is behind this has advanced knowledge of this conversation and wants to conceal their identify. I also note (and correct me if I'm wrong) there appears to be a consensus here that mass-reversion is also disruptive. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And the account continues to mass revert after being encouraged to stop and instead join this discussion by a neutral third party on their talk page. At least I stopped once I knew there was an ongoing discussion about the issue. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Damien, there are sockmasters who follow ANI and do this sort of thing for laughs; best ignored, and a block usually follows in short order, as plenty of SPI admins are on to this. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a subhead to this section for quicker attention to likely trolling. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the fact that it's marked as minor and with the same edit summary makes it quite obvious that it's trolling. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a script available for these mass changes? This is so fast. It took them not even 0.5 seconds to respond to my comment. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 04:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It must be someone who owns a sockfarm who was just waiting for the right time to do this. So strange. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They've been blocked by Kinu. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 04:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've applied a mass rollback. This is blatantly disruptive. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 04:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it's "blatantly disruptive" when I revert the bot-like edits by Damien Linnane, so you mass rollback those, but it wasn't blatantly disruptive for Damien Linnane to do this? Why don't you "mass rollback" those edits? Commitment issues (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Serious answer? Damien Linnane was doing this in good faith. You are not. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply put, I am. I think that the changes make the articles worse. "Died by suicide" is terrible phrasing, like "killed by death". That which is done badly must be undone to improve the encyclopedia. Commitment issues (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More sealioning... especially since his edits were "killed him/herself" and not "died by suicide" for the most part. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My action is not an endorsement of any particular version of the prose. I'll leave that to the editors who are actually engaging in the discussion above rather than simply being disruptive. Any editor in good standing is welcome to make any changes in good faith on a per-article basis. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 05:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am simply doing WP:BRD. I have reverted you. Now please discuss. Commitment issues (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets shouldn't be editing in the first place; they cannot partake in BRD. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 04:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many moons ago, I edited as an IP. Not a sock, just someone who lurks and decided to challenge bad edits. Commitment issues (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is 100% trolling. If you were aware of this discussion, you shouldn't have made those edits in the first place without discussing them here first. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 04:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing." – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 04:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have only made one revert per article. Commitment issues (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop with your attempt at sealioning. You are obviously a troll. If your name didn't give it away, the fact that you are brand new, performing mass reverts, and using the same edit summary and "minor edit" flag does. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh good god – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 05:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More trolling. They created an account, caused chaos, and now they're gone. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 05:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to process what happened in the last two minutes. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 05:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Refocus suicide discussion, or close ?
It seems this thread may have run its course and discussion is now focused more on the after affects of the initial issue and unlikely to resolve anything; productive discussion has moved to WT:MED WT:MOSMED, where very competent and knowledge editors wrt to the long-standing suicide issue are likely to be helpful. Is there anything left to resolve, or is it (more heat than light) time to close? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

IP refuses to discuss
has been editing on 2023 Manipur violence adding WP:UNDUE additions again and again even after requesting him to discuss the additions, he has openly refused to discuss. Most of these additions are political allegations and have no place on this article as there are already plenty political allegations that are due. User most definitely doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS. >>> Extorc . talk  08:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And now the user has already started WP:PERSONAL ATTACK here. >>> Extorc . talk  08:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue was deemed not blatant enough over at AIV. >>> Extorc . talk  08:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The user @Extorchas a personal agenda regarding diversion of Manipur Violence and ommission of ground facts. He has been deliberately making it a HINDU Christian issue, and adding certain slurs like " Kukis reside in protected and reserved forests" and removing a section on Arambai tenggol, which is mentioned in news and properly source.
 * @Extorc Should stop vandalism. 103.168.75.82 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "has a personal agenda regarding diversion of Manipur Violence and ommission of ground facts" No such personal agenda is demonstrable. "He has been deliberately making it a HINDU Christian issue" This is contrary to reality where I have literally tried to discuss how WP:DUE is the religious markers for the issue here. "adding certain slurs like" please read WP:V, WP:RS. The fact that Kukis mostly reside in the Protected areas is a fact corroborated by the RS. "a section on Arambai tenggol, which is mentioned in news and properly source." The section is a pile of political allegations which are in no way DUE. The only relevant part, the demand for a probe was shifted to the reactions section. Overall IP demonstrate complete failure to discuss and build consensus and is completely WP:NOTHERE >>> Extorc . talk  08:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 48 hours. Come back if the disruptive editing continues (and if the IP repeats comments such as "no discussions required" etc). Thanks, Lourdes  09:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the IP *really* doesn't like that. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TPA revoked. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Fumikas Sagisavas 's signature
user:Fumikas Sagisavas used signature that is really against wp:sign and WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, for this signature has nothing in relation with their username. Per previous discussion, we have warned them for changing signature, and on User talk:Fumikas Sagisavas, @Bbb23 also warned them about it.

But they just changed to another one unrelated to their username. You can find this on User talk:大于哀莫. What should we do? -Lemonaka‎ 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the personalization of the user signature. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:151.226.29.235
↵He is clearly not here to be constructive, he has made inappropiate edits to Pyongyang, he has a past record of being a vandal as you can see on his talk↵https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:151.226.29.235

User101FrOas (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC) User101FrOas (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Banned from Pyongyang Blocked for a week, as the previous 31-hour block had just expired. – bradv  19:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you User101FrOas (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Necrothesp, Jack4576, and AfD
This is regarding the AfD Articles for deletion/World's End (TV series) and Jack4576.

Its clear from the above ANI that Jack's ignoring all policies and guidelines is a problem at AfD, but others have significantly contributed to creating this problem by encouraging them.

One of those people is. I have seen them repeatedly encourage less experienced editors to ignore policy and guidelines at AfD, usually more covertly, but in this case overtly. In this case decided to delete based on a lack of sources,, but Necrothesp told them to ignore policy and guidelines, and Jack followed their advice and changed their vote,.

Necrothesp (an Admin) encouraging editors to ignore notability guidelines and policies at AfD is a problem and the above diffs show they have contributed to the situation with Jack4576. If we expect inexperienced editors to learn and respect notability guidelines and policy for AfD participation, Admins need to follow this and encourage editors to learn, not ignore guidelines and policies.  // Timothy :: talk  03:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like someone is upset because Necrothesp happens to have an opinion and expressed it. --Rschen7754 03:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Outageous. Bgsu98   (Talk)  03:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins to telling others to ignore notability policy and guidelines at AfD is not an opinion. It is disruptive editing and Jack is about to be banned from AfD for doing it.  // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you must agree with the party line or you get censored and topic banned from AFD? Rschen7754 03:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose:WP:IAR is a policy. It is in fact, one of WP's longest standing, and most important policies
 * You may not like that, it may be inconvenient to any legalistic approach to AfD that you might possibly prefer; but it is an unequivocal fact
 * There are many reasons to support an explicit reliance of WP:IAR by Necrothesp, as occured here. (1) WP's policies are occasionally deficient, and there are good reasons they ought sometimes be ignored in line with community consensus, as stated in that policy; (2) explicit reliance on IAR is a preferable alternative to editors covertly engaging in motivated reasoning, and / or bad-faith attempts to shoehorn keep decisions into other policy buckets that are a less appropriate fit. Through the explicit statement of IAR as a reason, the guideline breach is made clear to the closer
 * None of the editors at the World's End AfD have engaged in policy breach, and there is no incident
 * This ANI is entirely inappropriate; and frankly, more than a little POINTY - Jack4576 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit) the people below in this thread attempting to curtail IAR's usage with further rules, completely miss the spirit and point of IAR Jack4576 (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve been here off and on for >15 years and I’ve always thought WP:IAR was one of those “break-glass-in-case-of-emergency” provisions. I’ve never used it in all that time. When I’ve seen others use it, it’s usually turned out to have been a mistake, frequently messy and eventually reverted. You have been lucky it hasn’t blown up worse than this ANI kerfuffle; it helps that the stakes were low with marginal articles at AfD.
 * The WP:IAR button needs a label stating “may cause wiki drama”.
 * Good luck with any future use.
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of tangential, but IAR gets used at DYK frequently and often unilaterally with no objection. Nominator says, "I intended to nom this yesterday but got busy IRL, can we IAR on the 7-day deadline?" and reviewer says "No problem, IARing the 7-days." There may be other similar projects, but IAR should certainly be incredibly rare and very well-argued at AfD. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: And to be absolutely clear: If admins are able to make IAR a valid reason to dismiss notability guidelines and policy, chaos will reign at AfD, anyone will be able to vote based on their opinions without any regard to Wikipedia standards.  // Timothy :: talk  03:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This long-standing status quo has not caused 'chaos' to reign at AfD
 * editors / admins are already allowed to do that, so long as the vote is made explicitly in reliance on the WP:IAR policy Jack4576 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I disagree with the premise that I am "ignoring all policies and guidelines" at AfD. As can be seen from the above discussion, we are far from consensus on that issue. Coming to a different subjective opinion on SIGCOV evaluations is within guidelines. Perhaps infuriating for some, I'm sure. Jack4576 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I found some references and put them on the article’s talk page — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mm. I think Jack's behavior has been poor, and said so uptopic.  But while I also feel that the use of IAR in deletion discussions is almost always obnoxious, and almost always the recourse of the desperate who lack any legitimate grounds for their stance, as long as IAR remains an official policy, I can't agree that its invocation (or recommendations of its use) is a standalone ground for sanction.   Ravenswing      04:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: If IAR is a legit position to take at AfD, this needs to be clear, because I am under the impression that IAR is not an excuse to bypass notability guidelines. If IAR is legit is the case I will withdraw this ANI, but it needs to be clear if IAR can be used to substitute opionion for guidelines at AfD. It will certainly eliminate the need to do BEFOREs if in an editors opinion it wouldn't show any sources.  // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't asking for a sanction against Necrothesp, I was hoping for a warning to head off what unleashing IAR would do to AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A warning is still a sanction. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I felt at the time that Articles for deletion/Robin Miller (businessman) was open that Necrothesp's behaviour towards me was very unbecoming, particularly their insinuation that I have a "[p]ure lack of understanding of the real world" because I argued that WP:GNG trumps WP:ANYBIO (which, to my understanding is an WP:SNG therefore is trumped by GNG) and that the sourcing for that BLP was very weak. They did not present any sources but rather attacked me (after some borderline sources were presented by other editors) for daring to nominate someone with Knighthood. I ended up withdrawing the nom due to the ad homs. If this is part of a pattern of similar behavior, which this invoking of IAR seems to be part of a pattern of disregard for notability guidelines, then I would certainly support sanctions. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He did not 'attack' you. Honest, fair, and polite criticism is not uncivil
 * While his comments toward you were civil, your reaction to it (both there and here) is overly sensitive
 * Frankly, to advocate for his sanction here based on something so tenuous; is crybully behaviour and ought be discouraged. It would be best if you withdrew your call for sanction against him here
 * (additional edit) I note also that in the same thread you described User:Necrothesp as having made "garbage comments"; far more uncivil than anything that was thrown in your direction. Jack4576 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd question why you feel the need to gaslight on behalf of others, but I don't think you get a say here anymore since you're now topic banned. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Respect the dead, friend
 * WP:GRAVEDANCING Jack4576 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576: while GhostOfDanGurney is not correct in their assessment that you cannot comment here due to your tban, but that is not grave dancing, but simply a reminder to behave yourself. I will note that bludgeoning was one of the reasons you were tbanned, so please refrain from replying to every single comment here. Isabelle Belato 🏴‍☠️ 10:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment was specifically directed toward me so I do not see the bludgeoning issue Jack4576 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My original comment (that you tried to gaslight) wasn't, though. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again if WP:IAR is a legitimate point to make at AfD in support of a position, and if experienced users can advise others to use it at AfD, it needs to be clear this is appropriate; I am under the impression it is not appropriate and I doubt I'm the only one. If it is appropriate, it should also be clear to everyone including if this extends to IAR regarding BLPs. This is a serious question about a serious issue. If there is not problem with using IAR at AfD I will withdraw.  // Timothy :: talk  06:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a point one can make at AfD! It's only a guideline anyway – there is a slight practical difference between that and a policy after all. It has to be explained as an exception to have any effect on consensus though. For example, many editors believe in the importance of an encyclopaedia having articles on non-notable people that serve as an exemplar of a standard person of that era. If Jack4576, on the other hand, as they seem to be doing keep making that point as their view of notability is overly broad, then their energy would be better spent on something other than doing this to every AfD.  J947  † edits 06:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is policy. I have no opinion on the debate here, just stating a fact. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * N, I meant.  J947  † edits 21:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in a previous AN/I thread, the main problem with "IAR keep"s is that they usually boil down to arguments that the community has already rejected. IAR isn't a license to do things there's consensus against doing; it's there for the margins, the gray areas, the times the letter and spirit of a policy or guideline aren't quite in sync. In this case, "It's useful" has been pretty thoroughly rejected by the community as an argument to keep an article (excluding lists), so no weight should be given to an "IAR keep" that doesn't explain why this time is different. But that's a matter for the AfD's closer. I don't see a user conduct issue here. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A flip comment on a single AfD now justifies being dragged to the drama boards, merely because it accidentally caused someone to take it seriously? I will refrain from making specific connections about which groups of people appear more likely to want to shut down others' opinions on AfDs based on politicized !vote tendencies, this time, but this looks like another dubious example of the same. Close this pointless attempt to drag up drama against perceived opponents where there is none, with a trout to the thread-starter for starting such a bogus thread. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, there's another thread? Just noting that Jack4576 filed an arbitration case contesting my close @WP:ANI. The link is @WP:RFAR. El_C 07:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If "ignore all rules" is to be interpreted to allow tendentious axe grinding at AfD, then certainly "ignore all rules" can be used to allow administrators to indefinitely block every single deletionist or inclusionist who goes too far at AfD. Who gets to decide what "too far" means? The administrator, since rules can now be ignored, and people with the block button will decide. I hope that instead, level heads will prevail and sanctions that gain community consensus will be imposed instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mm, see, but this points to a greater problem: that so much of what we do on Wikipedia is based on an unwritten -- and often fragile -- social contract, and so much of that is jury-rigged on top of a 22-year-old, more freewheeling, slightly anarchic foundation. Indeed, you're right: IAR can be used by anyone to justify anything, the only check on that is a sufficient number of voices raised in opposition, and all such a consensus can fall back upon is a sense that some things are Not Done or have Gone Too Far. (It isn't, for example, that there's any official, binding list of what policies/guidelines can or cannot be legitimately employed in deletion discussions.) Of course, cutting through the Gordian knot is far outside the scope of ANI, and I wouldn't hold out much hope of it happening anywhere else either.   Ravenswing      09:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: arbitration case withdrawn. El_C 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A tangential thought: maybe Wikipedia should have a centralized location where every action taken using IAR as a justification gets logged. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Necrothesp has previously been warned for the same issue. The AN report is here, and that report was closed by User:Dennis Brown with the note "Necrothesp is ... warned that misrepresenting policy can (and will) lead to sanctions in the future."  Meanwhile User:Jack4576, using IAR in AfDs is likely to be a poor tactic anyway, because such rationales will almost certainly not be taken into account unless they are very well argued, not just "Keep per IAR". Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has alleged Necrothesp has misrepresented policy here
 * Instead we have an objection to his reliance on policy that happens to be disliked by the usual suspects
 * Anyway, I'm banned from further AfD participation, but thanks Black Kits, I note its limited tactical value Jack4576 (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that suggesting to another editor that it's perfectly OK to use IAR to keep an article that doesn't pass GNG is the definition of misrepresentation, but of course your mileage may vary. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we really think Necrothesp was seriously suggesting IAR was a good argument at AfD when notability hasn't been shown? I'm not sure it's their fault if they were just making a joke and Jack took it seriously. Although I'd also suggest maybe if you've been previously warned not to misrepresent policy at AfD, maybe making such jokes is a bad idea. Hoping Necrothesp will come in and clarify, they haven't edited in a few days. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This was my thought as well. I am not familiar with Necrothesp but I read the diff in question as 100% a joke, and I'm surprised nobody else mentioned the possibility. Not that people familiar with Necrothesp can't be dead right, just worth tossing in the viewpoint from a completely uninvolved editor. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a joke. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge I have never interacted with Necrothesp, but like GabberFlasted I read the comment as a (probably unwise!) joke. The fact that nearly three years ago they argued that direct descendants of reigning monarchs are inherently notable and "that notability is often not only defined by rigid rules, but by a sense that some topics just are notable and of value to an encyclopaedia" does not seem to me anywhere close to definitively showing that it was meant to be taken seriously as advice to vote keep per IAR.  I don't think it was a sensible comment to make, but I don't see that there is any certainty that it was meant as a serious piece of advice on how to participate in the AfD, and I don't see that Necrothesp was misrepresenting policy. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes well I don't really see the point in rejecting empirical evidence in favor of an application of pure reason in this context, so I have put a request on Necrothesp's talk page asking them to clarify this specific point. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valereee, @GabberFlasted, I certainly didn't read it as a joke. He regularly asserts notability based on personal non-P&G-based evaluations of topic importance and invokes IAR or vaguewaves at "sources" when called out.
 * See this !vote from last week: Keep. Great-granddaughter of an emperor and sister-in-law of a ruling prince. People like this are generally considered to be notable by reliable publications and were even more so in the past. She was notable in her lifetime, and notability is not temporary. After being reminded of NOTINHERITED he said Ah, somebody else who does not appear to understand the concepts of WP:IAR and WP:BURO and that AfD is an expression of opinion. We are deciding notability. That's what AfD is for.
 * See also some other examples from AfDs (that I happened to have watched) in just the last four months alone: here (Keep. An Imperial chamberlain and counsellor is very likely to be notable, even without much sourcing found on him thus far.) and here (Keep. Consistency. Either we keep all Category:Emmerdale characters or delete most of them. He was a major character. Nominating these characters individually is not helpful.) JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So it goes! Thanks for the illumination. Now I'm sure editors familiar with Necrothesp ARE dead right hah. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would seem IAR is waved around by those who don't like Wikipedia's notability standards. IAR definitely has its place, but that place is not deliberately ignoring community consensus without good reason. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, above. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR's has its place, but it is for the edge cases that aren't accounted for policy; it's not a carte blanche to reject consensus. Editors who attempt to use it that way are being disruptive as it can result in WP:LOCALCON issues, and encouraging other editors to go down the same path is even worse. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Accepting consensus but allowing exceptions to that consensus is not the same as rejecting consensus (although no reason for an exception was provided for an exception at the AFD in this case). WP:SIGCOV is just as likely to result in WP:LOCALCON issues, does that mean editors who attempt to use it are being disruptive? Peter James (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that when IAR is invoked at AfD it is normally not in that manner.
 * WP:SIGCOV is just as likely to result in WP:LOCALCON issues You'll have to give a little more explanation for that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not a bad thought. If such actions could be effectively and reliably tagged as such, It would help us not only review the actions to make sure they aren't too silly, but also help us see which rules are most frequently being ignored, and we could adapt policies/rules accordingly. Unfortunately I see two major downsides to this idea: Do we KNOW that actions citing IAR are occurring in enough volume to warrant this effort and likely-additional-noticeboard to monitor? The much greater bugbear however is that the mere existence of such a measure/record would effectively encourage the use of IAR by bringing it further attention, explicitly legitimizing it, and allowing editors to rationally think "Oh, Wikipedia reviews all actions undertaken as IAR, so we can totally stamp it as IAR and if we shouldn't have, the board will catch it." In other words, if we implement a Quality Control system, the collective Quality Assurance of the community will loosen up knowing there's a safety net beyond them. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfair to label Necrothesp as a hard-line inclusionist on certain topics, and I don't see the problem. AfD is not a vote, and we trust administrators to evaluate the strength of the arguments presented. An argument that invokes IAR, and only IAR, with no supporting evidence, will be given the weight it deserves. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is this discussion here? People are allowed to make stupid arguments in discussions and debates; we don't block or ban them for doing so.  I've not seen anything cited above that anyone did anything wrong, just people mad that some people made what they consider a bad argument for keeping an article at a deletion discussion.  People are allowed to be wrong without fear of punishment, they just don't get their way.  If Jack and Necrothesp's arguments are spurious or wrong, so what?  It'll get given no weight by the closer and nothing bad will happen.  I still am hurting my brain trying to understand what exactly anyone did wrong, behaviorally, other than making a bad argument in an AFD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is shades of Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124. I think @TimothyBlue should reconsider the AfD-to-ANI pipeline. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the implication in the OP is that an Administrator intentionally giving a user poor advice is a bad look. Even worse when the user receiving the advice already has made it very clear they don't understand the rules in the first place. It comes across as an admin blessing a problematic user to ... keep being a problem. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jayron. I'm not endorsing the specific edits mentioned by the OP, but there's nothing for ANI here. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's suggesting sanctioning Necrothesp, but given that he's an admin, perhaps he could possibly stop adding useless and non-policy-compliant rationales to AfD discussions? This certainly isn't the first time over a period of some years now. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins are allowed to say things that are wrong (Lord knows, I do frequently); it doesn't mean they are misusing their tools. There's nothing wrong here at all.  Just people saying things that are wrong.  People are allowed to be wrong.  Discussion closers are quite capable of ignoring wrong things which are said, when they assess the discussion.  We don't need to suggest anything.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp wouldn't stop adding nonsense at every train station AfD about "we keep all train station articles because we always have kept them and they are notable and consensus can never change" to the point I had to start an entire RfC in large part just to get him and his fellow travelers to stop (and foolish closers from buying that and giving it weight). Or how about the time an admin had to threaten to block him because of his making personal attacks towards me? As I have said, given his appalling attitude and obvious superiority complex, I have no desire to have any further contact with Trainsandotherthings. I haven't seen any evidence of tool misuse; I have seen plenty of evidence of deliberate ignoring of policies or creation of fake ones to justify AfD votes, and repeated incivility. His participation at AfD is a clear net negative. He has zero regard for policies or guidelines, and cares only about his personal views that everything he likes is notable. That he has somehow avoided sanctions for this long has shown him he can keep doing it and getting away with it, so why would he stop short of being sacntioned? It's one thing to say things that are wrong (I've done it plenty myself), it's another to intentionally say things you know in advance are clearly wrong. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strewth, can we all just keep AfD at AfD and not insist on dragging petty disagreements here? AfD needs more participation by people prepared to express an honestly-held view (and preferably do a bit of source-hunting). Quite often there are cases that don't quite fit the rules. AfD exists to discuss such non-obvious cases. We are not obliged to agree with one another. If AfD participants have to live in fear of being dragged here every time they disagree, it's a poor outlook for the encyclopaedia. For better or worse, we've zapped Jack. To follow-up by chasing anyone who's attempted to help or encourage Jack verges on a witch-hunt. Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, Jack4576 was zapped for just 24 hours not for their opinions, but for disruptive editing and casting aspersions. I can't swear to have read this thread in its entirety but I am fairly certain nobody is accusing Necrothesp or anyone of promoting Jack's battleground mentality or encouraging the casting of aspersions. As editors above have already stated, this isn't about opinions, but about behaviors and good judgement. 13:52 ADD: I've seen so much of Jack on so many boards that I plum forgot he was indeffed from AfD participation. My bad. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm not going back into that one anyway. My main concern is freedom of expression at AfD. My comment above was an over-emotional, frustrated response. I should reword it as: "In the interests of open and constructive discussion at AfD, I believe we should refrain from bringing our disagreements to ANI unless there is intractable risk to the content of Wikipedia, or genuine descent into personal attacks. It is otherwise better to agree to disagree." Elemimele (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This largely seems like a nothing burger. Dropping a hint that IAR can be used in certain situations (which is true - it can be rarely used in an edge case) does not obviate the responsibility of a user to familiarize themself with notability policy before taking the step of participating in AfD discussions. If the user keeps using IAR as their sole justification in every AfD, that should be considered disruptive editing on their part, not the fault of someone else. IAR is not a get out of jail free card. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing even after the user caught a 31 hour block last month. Most egregious example is that there was an RfC RM, which was closed with a consensus that Mertens should redirect to Mertens (surname), and that less than 10 days after the closure, the user went ahead and  redirected to Dries Mertens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC), edited voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He certainly violates in some dose WP:CIR, but ErceÇamurOfficial did do the right thing after the RM closure. Not a good example.  J947  † edits 06:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I make no comments about ErceÇamurOfficial's previous editing but in this case (the requested move discussion and subsequent pagemove) consensus was that Dries Mertens was the primary topic for "Mertens", hence why the surname page was moved to include the disambiguator. Ridiculous to take this to ANI. A7V2 (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The close states: The result of the move request was: moved to Mertens (surname)..
 * The RM was closed on April 25, and on the same day @MaterialWorks completed the move per consensus.
 * Then, on May 5, ErceÇamurOfficial redirected Mertens to Dries Mertens. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Am I reading a different discussion, there is no consensus there to redirect to Dries Mertens, the close doesn't say anything about doing so, and the closer has made clear at RFD that this wasn't what their close was. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested Then the closer must not be familiar with policy, see WP:MISPLACED. While it's true there was no explicit mention of changing the target of Mertens, the nom's stated reason for wanting to move Mertens (the old dab page) was that they believed Dries Mertens was the primary topic. Read what the !voters wrote also. Whether that RM should be overturned is irrelevant to this discussion since ErceÇamurOfficial was simply implementing the logical result of the close, since you cannot have a base name redirect to what is effectively a disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the votes before makingy comment, there is no consensus to redirect to Dries Mertens. However you right that runs foul of WP:MISPLACED, so the current redirect is against consensus and the consensus is against policy. I've struck my vote at RFD, I think your suggest of a new RM is likely the best course. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, looking at the RfD discussion it looks like the closer has realised changed their view. But really what this comes down to is even if there wasn't an explicit consensus to change the target of Mertens, it certainly wasn't a behavioural issue to change the target unilaterally, even if it was not in line with consensus (which I think it was anyway). A7V2 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ever since their last block expired, I've been checking up on them once in a while. It does seem like this user has learned from the last ANI discussion, as they've stopped nominating RFDs entirely, though I do still have some concerns. Their requested move discussions usually end with a Not moved rationale usually because they do not provide evidence for why the article should be moved, thus, wasting editors' time (e.g. here, here, and here). They often add unsourced content into WP:BLP articles (e.g. here, here, and here). Despite these issues, I do not think that this user should be blocked nor should this been taken to ANI. Instead, I think editors should've given them more warnings, as looking in their talk page, I see that only 3 warnings have been issued in the past month when, in my opinion, there should be more. <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the retargeting of Mertens specifically, as others have stated above, it was a necessary and logical post-move change given the close of the RM, and the closer apparently didn't understand the reasoning behind the requested move or see the need for retargeting of the resulting redirect. Whether or not the closer accurately determined consensus in the first place is a matter for WP:MR, and/or the current discussion at Rfd. So regarding this specific example, I see no behavioral issue, and have no comments regarding any other issues as I am not familiar with this editor. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ban proposal for undisclosed paid editor Wikipedia Genie
This is a single person agency operating on Upwork. They claim to have been editing Wikipedia for > 10 years and from their job history they have created or edited 450 articles. These are some accounts that I have managed to link to them so far: They are clearly not complying with WP:PAID and it is highly likely as the SPI confirms, they have been blocked many times previously. I propose that they are community banned, which, while largely symbolic, could also be reported to Upwork who sometimes remove listings if they can be shown definitively to be in violations of another site's ToU. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (blocked by in January as a UPE/CU block)
 * (part of Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)
 * (part of Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)
 * (part of Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)
 * (part of Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)
 * (part of Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)
 * are these related to any known existing accounts (such as wikiexperts or orangemoody)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b18f:9f09:5c6e:a04d:fc1c:278e (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not those ones no, but look at the SPI. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence here that can be reviewed? I get some of them, but I don't see how some of these accounts could be connected to that Upwork account. :Also, if you suspect that they are the same person, wouldn't WP:SPI be better? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have sent some to paid-en-wp@undefinedwikipedia.org earlier today, but it involved various detective work which isn't really necessary to share here publicly. They'll take care of any blocks as they see fit, but can't ban an organisation - this is the only venue for that. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I am User:Sunshine1287. As you can see on my user page, I have declared a conflict of interest: “I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.” I am in-fact, the co-founder of this business and would be happy to verify my identity privately. The only thing I did with my account is create a draft for QOR360 and submitted it to the Articles for Creation queue, where an editor reviewed it and published it. I disclosed my conflict of interest on the Talk page of the draft, but you can no longer see the page because User:Smartse moved the published page to Draft today, then somehow managed to delete the Draft. So there’s no record. But you can see on my user contribution history through, this note: (“Created page with 'I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.”) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sunshine1287 and you can see on user Talk page that is was accepted at Articles for Creation by an editor User: Cabrils

Aren’t pages supposed to be discussed for deletion by multiple editors when they’ve been approved at Articles for Creation rather than unilaterally deleted by one person? I don’t know if User:Smartse deleted the page because they don’t think it’s notable or just because they think it’s part of this web of undisclosed paid editing accounts. Can someone please rescue the page and re-publish it? Then if User:Smartse or someone else wants to challenge whether it is notable, they can start a discussion. Also, FYI,User:Smartse didn’t leave the required notice, referenced in the box above, on my user Talk page about this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunshine1287 Thanks.

Cross wiki abuse and sockpupetting - Muzemberg and GuydeBerg


Muzemberg and GuydeBerg have been blocked in WP:FR for sockpuppeting on subjects related to the ECLJ. It appears that they are also active on WP:EN and that GuydeBerg is actively modifying and creating pages in order to advertise for the so-called ECLJ report on the ECHR. I believe those two accounts should also be blocked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durifon (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have only one edit on the french wiki, a translation of a page I made. Being blocked there is a surprise, as no warning of any sort was issued to hear any sort of defense. This had nothing to do with a fair process.
 * As far as i know, there is no issues with working on a particular subject. So yes, many of my edit were related to the report you mention since i read it and found it worth mentionning, but you can observe that they are also dedicated to provide others informations about the different judges.
 * So rather than quickly blocking an account, I suggest review of the edits and a polite discusion, which should be the first step in a disagreement. For instance, discussing the "so-called" appelation on a report that is cited on different sources across Europe.
 * Thank for your attention. GuydeBerg (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 24 edits for GuydeBerg in WP:FR . Not just one. And you are sockpupetting with Muzemberg. Durifon (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * all on the same page, that is why i counted it as one. and no, i'm not the same person. GuydeBerg (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * While is obviously recently active,  has not edited here in three weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This sounds more appropriate for WP:SPI. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

user:PlanespotterA320 and aftermath
user:PlanespotterA320 and their sock user:RespectCE created lots of hoaxes about Russians and Ukrainians, previous discussion is on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive347, all the articles created by user:RespectCE got deleted. I'm now checking on PlanespotterA320's article recently, some of articles were mainly created and edited by them but I didn't have the competence to read Russian, does anyone want to help us do some fact checks? FYI, PlanespotterA320's articles. -Lemonaka‎  19:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I recall Planespotter saying she had created hoaxes as part of some very confusing gambits shortly before and after her global ban, but I don't recall anyone ever confirming that, and generally her content work was fine. Is there an instance you can point to where she was found to have created hoaxes? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair a lot of her edits were to Soviet aviation topics so obscure that its very hard to vet. Obscure old hard copy foreign language sources are hard to get even for the most committed fact checkers. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure but like, is there a reason to think she was hoaxing, other than her saying so as part of an explicit bid to get a few articles deleted after she was told they wouldn't be G7'd? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I always suspected her of creating citations through citing user generated or limited access aviation and military history sites in Russian that she also edited, its not the same sort of hoaxing per say but I will go on the record as saying that I don't think we're to the bottom of the well yet in terms of discovering disruptive behavior. In particular I would wager a guess that she is part of the warheroes.ru [] project. An edit summary search goes over 500, I don't know how to search individual edits to see how many times it was used as a source by them. This is of course all speculation based on gut feeling and circumstantial evidence, I don't have off the top of my head anything which I believe could satisfy you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not demanding a smoking gun by any means, just making sure we're not wasting our time based only on some "12D chess"-type statements Planespotter made as the walls were closing in. What you're saying seems like a reasonable line of inquiry. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tamzin, I really don't know whether Planespotter's words are right or wrong, she told enough lies and I really don't know their articles are hoaxes, they are telling another lie or just something with poor reference. -Lemonaka‎  23:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking this article as an example, Nazim_Osmanov, first source cannot be checked anymore and it's from vk.com, a user generated site. Another source is a book without any ISBN and I don't know how to find the book at all. -Lemonaka‎  23:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin @Horse Eye's Back as an update and a follow up to this request, I've created a list for checking. User:Lemonaka/Factcheck. Feel free to make any notes if someone is willing to check. -Lemonaka‎  00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Shahmaran page is constantly being disrupted by the user HistoryofIran


There are constant citation mistakes, anytime I fix them the user HistoryofIran undos all my work. The book itself states it's from Kurdistan. Since this person has been on Wikipedia for along time, they're getting away with blatantly hoarding Kurdish pages and changed history. We tried to talk with this user on Talk multiple times, but they keep gaslighting and ignoring all our citations and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojin416 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Whether the info is right or not isn't the point here, it's the fact that you, which is a blatant violation of the canvassing guideline. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 19:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't know that wasn't allowed. My bad. Rojin416 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't know that removing/altering sourced info, using non-WP:RS, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS isn't allowed either? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was using reliable sources. Infact, I was even using the approved citations and reliables sources, that clearly state it was Yazidi's and Kurds from Kurdistan. Maybe if you took the time to actually read the citated resources, you wouldn't keep undoing "A Story from the Mountains of Kurdistan." to "A Story from the Mountains of Turkey."
 * The citation is right there. Infront of you. Maybe learn how to read and get rid of that vendetta you have against Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the name of the title, that being the only constructive edit done by OP. I suggest that OP gets indeffed for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, off-wiki coordination, and so on. This screams WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rojin416 (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But there's still over 4 mistakes with that page. Rojin416 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hold on, who is we? Is this account controlled by more than one person? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this sounds suspicious. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Reddit off-wiki coordination at Shahmaran
Well, Rojin416 beat me to it. Shahmaran is currently being targeted by brand new users and IPs. One of them, Rojin416 was reverted a few times by me and Aintabli , which led him to ask for help at Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/13h03b2/i_need_help_with_wikipedia/). Two weeks ago, a similar thread about the same article was created. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * According to Reddit, this person has a vendetta against Kurds and is constantly censoring anything related to Kurdistan. The citations itself clearly say "Yazidi kurds", or "from Kurdistan", yet this person constantly undos everything. Rojin416 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, at least be creative with your WP:ASPERSIONS. This users activities here and comment on Reddit clearly demonstrates serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. Rojin416 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Reddit? Are you kidding me? Reddit is most certainly not a reliable source, and accusations should be made with hard evidence, such as diffs. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a redditor myself, I gotta say: redditors love talking out of their asses. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * but you're an unreliable source for saying that "redditors love talking out of their asses" :) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Is it time for general sanctions on accounts with fewer than 100 edits that bring HistoryofIran to ANI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...you're telling me this a thing that keeps happening? Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've lost count on how many times I've seen ANI reports on HistoryofIran on my watchlist. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the past 12 months? At least 15 times, and that's just a quick look at the archives. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's always some niche thing that few people are familiar with, so it languishes until three days before the next thread starts. Maybe a general sanction to just partial block any account with fewer than 100 edits that brings HistoryofIran to ANI from any page they're in conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not gonna lie, that would make things way more simple. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 20:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we vote on this? I agree that HistoryofIran has continuously been the target of many disruptive and libeling newcomers. Aintabli (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is rather wearying, isn't it? Actually, it would actually be quite a trivial edit filter to stop any new editor from starting a thread here that contained the string "HistoryofIran" ... Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, sounds good. I'm new to ANI and this already isn't the first HistoryofIran report I've seen. As for this specific report, I think this could safely be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG against the plaintiff, probably by indeffing them. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. You people aren't alarmed by the fact that HistoryOfIran gets reported constantly, but because he's been here a long time, you're all going to give him god level status and going forth ignore every report about him? He has issues with allowing edits, and continues to undo anything related to Kurds or Kurdistan. This isn't my cited source, it's a source that he keeps REVERTING TO. Which he accepts as a cited source:
 * ^Nicolaus, Peter (2011). “The Serpent Symbolism in the Yezidi Religious Tradition and the Snake in Yerevan” Iran & Caucasus. 15 (1/2): 59. JSTOR 41430888. “Furthermore, the serpent
 * Was, and still is considered a symbol of good fortune and power among Kurdish people and the “image of Shahmaran (the queen of serpents) is depicted on glass or metal work, seen hung on walls even today”.”Accessed 14 May 2023
 * However, for some reason, he won't allow me to write "Kurds" nor "Kurdistan" on the page, even though it's our mythology. I'm not here writing war stories, writing a biography, nor essays, I'm just trying to edit the page to reflect my culture and heritage which is being suppressed by HistoryOfIran. Even using THEE cited source that he himself refuses to accept anything but.
 * This is ridiculous. It's evident this user has constantly been complained about in the past, but everyone's solution is just to make it so he never gets reported again? Rojin416 (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He always gets reported by new editors that end up indeffed for severe WP:NPOV violations, so stopping those reports would save time for everyone involved. As for this dispute, the Reddit stuff and allegations of bias do not reflect well on you. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What's ridiculous is that Rojin416 is still trying to justify their disruptive editing. That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too. And that's fine, the source is WP:RS (unlike some other ones.. ), it can obviously be used, and no one is denying that Kurds believe in the Shahmaran too; it's even mentioned in the article. But how did you use that source? Hmm.. let me see (note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now ) - you removed sourced mention of its Armenian, Turkic and Indo-Iranian connections, replacing all of it with "insert something Kurdish here". And thus you got reverted. And I'm not even gonna entertain the rest of stuff you wrote. I do think the Shahmaran article is in a state of mess based on some of the questionable citations, info not even supported by some of the citations, etc, but you did not improve its state. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already talked about this in Talk section.
 * "That source doesn't say that the Shahmaran is of Kurdish origin, it just says that the Kurds believe in it too."
 * AND YET KURDS/YAZIDI/AND KURDISTAN IS STILL MISSING!
 * Why are we constantly going in circles? Look at your Armenian citation. It literally states it's the Yazidis that celebrate it.
 * "note: the Nicolaus citation was wrongly used on the Indo-Iranian bit instead of Sartori. Nicolaus should be used somewhere else, which is what Rojin416 should have done; I have fixed it now"
 * And the citation that you deleted, literally stated Kurdistan and Kurdish in it. Instead of updating Kurdistan and Kurdish, you delete it. AGAIN, for the millionth time, why you and another user are accused of vandalizing the page and denying Kurds and Kurdistan. Rojin416 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29354/1/10731449.pdf
 * Here read for yourself. It constantly mentions Kurdistan and the Yazidi's. It does not state it originated from Armenia. Rojin416 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread isn't for content disputes. That's the whole point of a talk page and other venues if no consensus is reached. This is about your behaviour. You can't spit out the word vandalism when a discussion doesn't steer your way. This is about your behaviour. Per WP:BRD, the next step would have been having a civil discussion and potentially reaching consensus. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 03:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indeffed as a WP:BOOMERANG. I would support more general sanctions as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * an indefinite block. Both and  need to work on their ability to collaborate, and I would support a two-way interaction ban, but indefinitely blocking a productive contributor does more harm than good. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. With evidence of canvassing, PA, and edit warring, the indef block could have been warranted. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the moment Rojin wrote I'm not attacking you. You have a very clear political vendetta. It's very evident from your history regarding Kurds. was the moment an indef became inevitable because there is no way back from such an egregious attack on an editor. The canvassing and the edit warring – good god, look at their contributions – was enough but that was more than enough. Good block, UtherSRG. Thank you. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 17:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the personal attacks and Reddit canvassing warrant the user being indeffed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * said that they were unaware of the canvassing policy and owned up to their mistakes. Their attacks are somewhat problematic, but they seem like a good-faith newcomer with real concerns about 's potentially tendentious editing. Their complaints are in the gray area between personal attack and legitimate conduct dispute. They need time to cool down and learn Wikipedia's culture, not an indefinite block. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 14:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They didn't only violate the canvassing policy though, for example they kept attacking me despite being told of WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA (though it goes without saying you don't randomly attack people, it's basic etiquette ). It seems you're the only one who consider this user to be a "good-faith editor" and "productive contributor," despite their actions, which is concerning. If you think I am doing tendentious edits, feel free to report me - right now you're just doing the same as Rojin416, accusing me of stuff with no evidence, i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS. Rojin416 has deleted all their comments in that thread now, but right after their block they went on another angry rant on Reddit, calling Wikipedia a cesspool or something alike and protesting over Shahmarans recent expansion by an uninvolved user - they clearly don't regret their actions. Don't expect another reply from me, and please don't ping me in this thread again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I again disagree. Prior to the Reddit post being deleted, they were demonstrating POV-pushing, including possible in their latest unblock request. Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rojin416 was a bin-fire in the making. Their edits were terrible, their personal attacks on HistoryofIran were awful in every way, and it's not a huge surprise for anyone anywhere on the internet to know that rounding up your mates on social media in order to bombard somewhere or someone is always unacceptable behaviour.
 * Also, Freoh: a cool down block for them? Really? Come on. There are good reasons why we don't do that. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 16:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * with real concerns about HistoryofIran's potentially tendentious editing
 * I'm guessing you've not hung out on ANI much. Because I'll be blunt: HistoryofIran is one of our best resources for fighting against nationalistic POV warriors in these articles. The concerns about HoI invariably come from people trying to push "OUR nation created this, not THOSE people" types of edits. If anything, HoI deserves a medal for putting up with the lengthy battles against these types of accounts, and the number of times they've had to sit waiting on admin action.
 * Despite the OP's assertion that we're supporting HoI based on the age of their account, the truth is that we're supporting HoI based on the fact they've been right more often than not. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking of waiting on admin action...cough cough scroll up cough AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which thread are you referring to? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Muhsin97233
 * Has been open since the 1st of May, pretty clear block candidate, no admin action. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden
Looks like another brand new user arrived from Reddit, with the same behaviour as Rojin416. I could go into more details (such as them inserting their own words/opinion into articles, and thinking that they get to omit a (highly prominent) historian because they dont agree with them ) but I hope these diffs suffice;

"rvv, extreme pan iranic edits previously, dedicated to wiping out kurdic history, whilst the short explanation on the Corduene wiki about Carduchoi exists, it is insufficient." (This was their first edit, randomly reverting my half year old clean up edit, which I did in a number of articles at that time, such as Cadusii . Apparently that warrants those random attacks. How did they even know of that edit? And why attack a random stranger like that? Also, including the Cyrtians as part of "Kurdic history" is on par with a Mexican saying that Aztec/Mayan/Spanish history is "Mexican" just because they can trace their ancestry to them)

"your edit completely destroyed the page, I had linked the article to the Carduchi hypothesis on the Corduene page however your claim that I had apparently attempted to diminish your reputation was mere tu quoque. As my reasoning for my edit summary was based on a posteriori considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature"

"I decided to skim through your “contributions” to Kurdish articles and have found you constantly use the “right great wrongs” as a way to circumvent the removal of a kurdophobe from wikipedia, I would say that is a very smart move but it is fuelling the misinformation about Kurds."

"merely using your logic against you, plus abhorrent kurdophobia is clearly bannable"

Their userpage bio alone is already pretty concerning; "just a kurdish historian who believes in the truth and debunking any of our oppressors misinformation for good" Who are these "oppressors"? And who are they to judge what is "misinformation" and "truth"? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indef block and checkuser/SPI Could be sockfarming. As I said before, your username is one of the reasons why they target and harass you. I know that you want to keep your username, but can you really deal with all of this frustrating stuff? I think a new username would be helpful. At least, those users may stop writing nationalistic/racist rants and focus on the content of your edits. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indef block and checkuser per Mann Mann. Clearly there's no good in regularly dealing with newcomers whose off-Wiki campaign is demonstrated by their parallel claims of prejudice, while in the earlier case of Shahmaran, what they did was basically remove or replace anything non-Kurdish. Aintabli (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * you’ve victimised yourself once again and when I used your wording against you, you instead rushed to report me because I had provided sufficient evidence against Asatrian being a literal racist ultranationalist, this isn’t about Kurdish nationalism at all, this is the same level as trying to use Hans Günther as a “reliable” source, nonsensical. Volkish Kurden (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. If someone wants a checkuser to check if it's sock or meat they should start an SPI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, I'll make the SPI shortly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by IP editor on select pages
IP editor contributions  on Andhra Pradesh District pages are found to be vandalism. Despite warnings, the user is persisting in vandalism for more than a month. Recent IP contributions are at Special:Contributions/2601:41:C500:4D80:F5FE:DC53:EB54:2CCF. Kindly take appropriate action.Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Davey2010
User:Davey2010 objects to me implementing WP:IG re a gallery on Dennis Dart. He keeps reverting the removal of the gallery and threatening me with blocking for edit-warring. Another editor, User:Mattdaviesfsic, reiterated that WP:IG was policy and I was correct in removing it. Davy2010 then accused me of asking Matt to revert his edit and then accused him of being my sockpuppet. He is basically calling me a liar. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to verify everything that has said. Sad to see how  has behaved throughout this, incl false allegations of socking and seeking consensus for removal of a gallery, already unadvised in policy per WP:IG. Yesterday I felt we nearly lost Murgatroyd as an editor due to Davy's bullying - see here, for example. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wondered who this "Dennis Dart" fellow could be that he inspires such passions. I then looked at the article and discovered that it was about a type of bus. That explains everything. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Murgatryod removed a gallery at Dennis Dart, I objected to the removal but did try and compromise by trimming the gallery down to 5 images (from 13) but again was reverted, After Murga retires Matt pops up and reverts - prior to the revert he's never edited that article before - They've both gone to the talkpage and I've repeatedly told both to leave the article alone for the time being end to start an RFC on it.
 * Either Matt was asked to revert me or Murga and Matt are the same person - No one randomly comes across an article they've never edited before and joins in on edit warring. Either way for once in my life I believe I've been calm, patient and reasonable throughout and whilst I have made an accusation it doesn't really warrant an ANI report imho,
 * Also seems strange how both editors can't spell my name correctly. Anyway this report is unnecessary imho. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I watch Murgatroyd49's talk page. That's all. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more than that - You both edit the same things and both seemingly cannot spell my name correctly either, Very strange. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have been asked to stop repeating your false and libellous accusations. I see you are still doing it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any more evidence of canvassing or sockpuppetry than that? Accusations like that should not be made without evidence, per WP:ASPERSIONS. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A shared interest in railways and copying another editor's spelling of your name hardly constitute evidence of sockpuppetry. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll agree to disagree QuicoleJR/Phil. The popping up to participate in an edit war after someone else retires in this context simply seems very strange to me but If I'm wrong (I don't believe I am) then I apologise. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at Consensus dos and don'ts could have saved a lot of time on this, especially: Follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Take intractable disputes to the right dispute resolution process, Don't use tendentious editing to get your way. Nobody  ( talk ) 12:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did Davey threaten you with blocking for edit-warring? I don't see any threats at Talk:Dennis Dart. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, on my talk page, User talk:Murgatroyd49 Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the standard template...... – Davey 2010 Talk 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is, in fact, the standard template for edit-warring. Now, whether the template should have been placed is another thing altogether, but that's getting a bit off-topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry what ? .... He edit warred and got warned accordingly, I appreciate it takes 2 to edit war but still, Had he followed [{WP:BRD]] and talked before or after their first revert then we wouldn't be here now. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Question: Did anyone consider just going to dispute resolution to solve the debate over the gallery? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatey before we could get to that point, accusations of collusion and sockpuppetry were being bandied about. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like this could still be solved peacefully. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion at Talk:Dennis Dart has broken down to the point that administrator intervention is called for, though everyone needs to chill. Murgatroyd49, stop using words like "libellous" and what not before someone takes you seriously and blocks you for legal threats. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Topic-ban gaming by Jack4576
Yesterday, the first discussion related to Jack4576's behavior in deletion discussions was closed as a topic ban from AfD, following various complaints related to their behavior both in AfDs and in project-space discussions related to notability and community governance. Jack4576 spent the 23rd of May blocked from editing due to personal attacks related to the original case, if not the sanction itself. Today, Jack4576 has seen fit to start yet another discussion about basic notability considerations at NCORP, (diff1 of the discussion opening, with further comments in the thread); on its own that already comes close to gaming the general consideration that topic-bans are broadly construed, but it becomes even more inappropriate when considering that, as pointed out by in that discussion (diff2), Jack4576's initiation of the discussion appears to be directly in response to arguments raised at an AfD where they had been previously involved, Articles for deletion/William Street Bird, which makes this pretty clear gaming of the sanction, in a manner which repeats some (if not all) of the behaviors that led to the original ban. As I am nominally involved, I'm bringing this here and pinging the closing admin rather than taking unilateral action. signed,Rosguill talk 18:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Oppose I’m TBanned from AfD discussions, not notability or policy discussions. You cannot ‘broadly construe’ AfD discussions to mean ‘policy in general’ The talk page discussion I initiated was a good-faith question of generally applicable policy. If i’m blocked for this so be it Jack4576 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, evidence clearly points to Jack4576 gaming his sanction, so block Jack4576, but not indefinitely. Eventually, the motive for gaming should go away as his article creations are whittled through, so an indefinite block may not necessarily be preventative in the long run.—Alalch E. 19:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of their recent article creations have been entirely trivial and somewhat promotional: Essência, Costes (restaurant), Borkonyha Winekitchen, Babel (restaurant), Mojo's Bar. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 22:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Block - This is blatant gaming and WP:IDHT from Jack, and we have spilled way too much ink on this person already. I'd suggest 1 month, just to let the dust settle from all these AfDs and various discussions. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Block - They've now started to bludgeon the NCORP discussion, so there's a clear unwillingness or inability to cease the conduct that got them blocked in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I commented on 2 out of 4 responses to the thread, your accusation of bludgeoning is baseless and you should withdraw it Jack4576 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Block and perhaps TBan from notability-related discussions. The numerous RfCs he's opened trying to overturn fundamental aspects of our notability guidance have been huge IDHT timesinks. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw this as well and was very disappointed. Jack clearly wants to exhaust the community’s patience in order to have us give up and give them free rein over our inclusion policies. They are still only managing the first half of that plan. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 22:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaannnd the bludgeoning of the commenters with nitpicking requirements for ever more granular definitions begins again. Such fun. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 23:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Block they've continued to do extremely poor reviews at WP:GAN, despite knowing that an immediate GAR got opened on one they did recently. I don't know whether its RGW or IDHT, but further disruption needs to be prevented. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the supposedly poor GAR and what was problematic about it please ? Jack4576 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be Talk:How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations/GA1, and it's problematic because of the failure to evaluate copyright issues or criterion 3, as pointed out in the ongoing reassessment. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The more recent problematic GA pass was for Bellona's Husband: A Romance, where @Fram disputed Jack's assessment: JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinite Block: We've wasted enough time on this editor who has proven to be a significant net drain on the project. WP:BATTLE, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:TE take your pick - they all apply. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef block - BATTLEGROUND behavior left and right from this guy, and I'm pretty tired of hearing about it. An indef block as a result of this discussion would be a de facto CBAN, which I think is the right sanction here.  The editor apparently can't play nicely with others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Block and Topic Ban from notability-related discussions for continuing to game the situation. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them for two weeks for teasing at the edges of their topic ban, and more importantly for continuing the editing that led to the topic ban. That should give the current AfDs time to resolve and hopefully get the point across that the community is fed up with their behavior. This block is not intended to stop any discussion on further topic bans, longer blocks, or other sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef. Yeesh, even after two seconds of looking at this guy's MO it's blatant that he cannot work collaboratively. He's an inherent time sink and and indef block would be preventing him from wasting more of the community's time. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Indefinite block for multiple reasons. This editor just described his colleagues as a "goon squad" on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Indef Block I don't think the user is here in en.wiki for a collaborative experience. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Indef Block WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Indef Block per reasons above and previous ANI. This has the feeling of intentional self-martyrdom; editor has selected the field they wish to proverbially die and is not going to let this go. They have significant and I think insurmountable problems accepting WP:CONSENSUS, persistent WP:IDHT, WP:RGW, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Another personal attack should be the final straw.  // Timothy :: talk  00:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef block: It's a shame, really. Several editors have, in these various discussions and on his talk page, pointed to positive contributions in article creation by Jack.  Pity it's not feasible to restrict him to that.  He just cannot keep from picking fights, cannot keep from escalating fights, cannot keep from ceasing to fight, cannot recognize that Wikipedia has civility and conduct standards which apply to him, and cannot accept the premise that sanctions restrict his actions.  Whether, as ScottishFinnishRadish hopes, it's gotten across to Jack that the community is fed up with his behavior seems to me moot: it's plain that Jack doesn't give a damn for the community's opinion.    I can't see that anything short of an indef will keep us from winding up right back here, in another debate flooded by Jack's bludgeoning and hostility.   Ravenswing      01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * support indef. there seems to be no end to the community's time wasted by jack. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose an indef block...for now: I support giving Jack one final chance once his block ends, provided he agrees not to participate in any policy discussions, RFCs, or RFAs for at least a month or two. I categorically support Jack withdrawing from all current contentious discussions and abiding by his topic ban at AFD (a ban which I also support as, at the moment, he has not shown the necessary understanding of WP:GNG to participate effectively). I do not know what has happened here, as Jack has previously been a quiet and constructive editor, which is the reason I support one more chance. If, after the two-week block ends, he returns to any of the behaviours that brought him here to ANI, I would then, unfortunately, have no choice but to support an indefinite block in order to prevent further disruption and time wasting. Jack and I both work on similar articles, and I have offered him the opportunity to work on an article of his choice. I encourage him to accept this offer and work in isolation with me for at least a month. We will then nominate the article and have an uninvolved editor review it. This will enable things to cool down, and enable Jack to develop a better understanding of WP:GNG and WP:PRIMARY, as well as show others he can work collaboratively to build articles. If I see even one more instance of Jack behaving in the same way that brought him to this point (two blocks and a topic ban within two weeks, not to mention irritating many people), I will convert to supporting an indefinite block. If you aren't indefinitely blocked now, then it would be your final chance Jack. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to the offer I left on his TP encouraging him to withdraw from all policy discussions and work on law articles, Jack has stated: I agree...I am happy to never comment again on RfC or AfD or on WP policy discussions and only focus on law articles on his talk page. I therefore support his block staying for two weeks to cool down, then coming off at that time as originally planned. I oppose an indefinite block as of now and support Jack wiping the slate clean and starting fresh in two weeks. I would support an immediate indefinite block if Jack breaks his promise at all after this. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block. I think Jack should be given one more chance per MaxnaCarta. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef Jack has been given multiple chances to change his behavior but is clearly incapable of working collaboratively. Unfortunately this is the only option remaining to us. A shame as he appears to be decent at creating/editing articles, but the behavioral problems are far too much of a timesink and disruption. He is incapable of restraining himself from bludgeoning. Enough is enough. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - give MaxnaCarta’s initiative a chance. Per MaxnaCarta above. See the discussion he had on Jack’s page. As MaxnaCarta pointed out, all of this is pretty new behaviour on Jack’s part. He’s a valuable contributor on Australian law. Australians deserve to have Wikipedia coverage of high court law as Americans get of theirs. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had originally intended to support the indef, as Jack had entirely succeeded in exhausting my patience even before we arrived at this point. However, I've been swayed by MaxnaCarta's impassioned remarks at Jack's talkpage and am thus recording my wafer-thin opposition to an indef at this time. I support the continuation of a fixed-duration block to enforce a cooling-down period, after which we extend sufficient rope to test their commitment to staying the hell away from anything even faintly resembling a policy discussion or any defence of content. Should that rope be used in a charge onto yet another battleground, well, that'll be the end of Jack's time here. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 02:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef block — the excessive amount of disruption makes it difficult for other editors to contribute. I appreciate MaxnaCarta's efforts to help Jack become a constructive contributor; however, I see no indication that he will become so. He not only demonstrated an "I didn't hear that" attitude at AfD, but also tried changing notability guidelines at multiple venues, even after he was topic-banned from AfD, to attempt to influence the outcome of a specific AfD. In addition, his most recently created articles (Essência, Costes (restaurant), Borkonyha Winekitchen, Babel (restaurant), Mojo's Bar) are very trivial in scope, proving that he does not have a reasonable understanding of notability guidelines. Twice here he's referred to others as "the goon squad," only a few hours ago. I see no indication at all that his uncollaborative behavior will end. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 02:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A short block seems warranted, but I agree that another chance per MaxnaCarta is probably warranted, as the editor has been historically constructive. However, a broader topic-ban on notability discussions could be warranted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I unwaveringly support that topic ban. He can apply for its reversal if and when he proves it appropriate to the community. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Longer (but not indefinite) block for continuing to make personal attacks and additional topic bans. I was critical of the first thread that led to the tban (as a supporter of it) as I felt there was a lack of focus on Jack's levying of personal attacks. I was considerate of supporting just an admonishment in the first case, but it had to come with the carve-out that Jack would stop making personal attacks. However, immediately after being temp blocked by SFR, Jack calls other editors a goon squad here. This is absolutely unacceptable, especially for someone who has been warned on multiple occasions about making personal attacks, and would typically lead to an indef as a repeat offender. I am satisfied, very narrowly, with MaxnaCarta's reasoning, but the continued use of personal attacks still warrants at least a 1 month block under WP:NPA for someone who had been priorly warned. To help Jack stay in line, additional tbans should be levied for deletion broadly, notability (somehow), and RfCs. An additional civility restriction should be put in place, wherein a single instance of incivility or personal attacks will result in the hammer swinging. Curbon7 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Substituting additional tbans with a broad project namespace block per Rosguill also works; I was just spitballing ideas there. I think some sort of formal civility warning/admonishment/restriction is important, as I see that as one of the underlying roots the issue here. Curbon7 (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think that in a case like this the civility requirement goes without saying: if a consensus is formed for a limited sanction, and in less than a year we're dealing with the same pattern of incivility, it is pretty much guaranteed to result in a quick indef if reported. signed,Rosguill talk 16:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7, indef is better than time-limited for most behavioral issues that aren't Elevation (emotion) issues. Indef requires the person to interact rather than simply wait it out and start right up again. Valereee (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support lengthening and expanding block along the lines of Curbon7. However, rather than imposing additional bans, I think that the best remedy may be an indefinite WP-space block together with an expiring site block of 2-4 weeks. The testimony given by MaxnaCarta and others gives reason to believe that Jack might be able to go back to editing constructively if given time to cool off, but I would want to see a persuasive appeal before allowing Jack to participate in guideline discussions or the like again. signed,Rosguill talk 04:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with this approach. I think it strikes the right balance. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur. I'd happily support this approach. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 16:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block on the basis that the user is already under a preventative block that should be adequate for prevention, and an indef would just be punitive. Also the user has an offer on the table for somewhat of a mentorship plan with MaxnaCarta so they will be able to move forward under watchful eyes. Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the user is gaming said preventative block, it is not working and needs to be upgraded. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking about two different blocks. You seem to be talking about the partial block with a topic ban, and I was talking about the most recent time limited block. I guess I should have made that more clear, and just to prevent any further misunderstanding I want to make it understood that this user did not do any gaming of the time limited block nor have there been any complaints of it happening that I am aware of so it appears to be doing the job of preventing disruption. Huggums537 (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block I don't like the attitude that Jack has displayed, however I think because of his opinions he has been treated more harshly than someone else might (evidence: see Necrothesp thread above). --Rschen7754 06:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support limited block, oppose indef. Not sure if I count as involved as it appears to be my comment on an AfD that led to him starting the discussion on SIRS. Either way, I agree that there are clear issues here that merit a block to protect the project and reduce editor timewasting. The issues that led to the topic ban are still present and the editor has not addressed them. However, there can be reasons why an editor might act out of character for a short period, and the previous ban was very new. We should be aware of the speed of this apparent self-destruction. I am aware an indef could be appealed, but I believe only after 6 months. I would like to see Jack take a break, but a shorter one might be sufficient if this behaviour really is out of character as has been suggested by editors who know him. If the behaviour is out of character then 2-4 weeks should be enough time for the necessary self reflection or whatever is required. Further protection of the project could be enacted with an indefinite WP-space block per, although the block itself should be sufficient inasmuch as it is clearly a last chance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support broader topic-ban on notability & dleetion, broadly construed (or alternatively 's proposal) and lengthen current block. I am arguably being fairly lenient here but I, with hesistance, weakly concur with and  for the time being in giving a last chance and weakly oppose an indef. I support a longer block because since the topic ban that I supported a few days ago, Jack tried to do inappropriate appeals (including a RFAR, then ANI, then AN) but those were self-reverted, followed by refusing to get the point and continuing to argue on SIRS in response to an AfD comment that is likely a violation of the topic ban, among others, which earned a 24-hour and 2 week block respectively. However, Jack followed this with personal attacks as demonstrated above, which I think would justify an extension of the current block (probably by a month). Furthermore, I think the topic ban for AfDs should probably be superseded with a ban in discussing notability & deletion anywhere in projectspace, which Jack has continued doing to illustrate a point and violating the topic ban. Nevertheless, otherwise, I am, very narrowly of course, agreeing with MaxnaCarta and Curbon7 for now, in that a last chance should be given. Still, if Jack continues to post personal attacks for the time being, I will change my vote to supporting an indef.  VickKiang   (talk)  07:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support block and further preventative sanctions, but open to the anti-indef arguments above. An indefinite block would have been reasonable given the NCORP post right after being topic banned from AfD. However, it does seem that MaxnaCarta and others appear correct in asserting that this recent activity is a deviation from previous content work. Xtools shows that the deviation from mainspace editing into the Wikipedia space happened only this month, where previously infrequent editing turned into over 1,000 edits to WP (and WT) space. As this seems to be the area of issue, rather than the mainspace edits, suggestions above of a topic ban from notability or a partial block from WP space may resolve the issue. I would also advise extreme caution surrounding article creation, given its relation to notability. CMD (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef block, Weak oppose limited block. I thank for their contributions, and I think the limited block is a good idea. However, as the person that brought up the original AN/I thread which lead to the AfD TBAN, I advocated for that rather than any other type of sanction specifically because of their contributions to Australian law. I also think that Jack doesn't have understanding of WP:GNG and other fundamental Wikipedia policies, even after the AfD TBAN, and have not learned from their mistakes. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - To all opposing an indef: five'll get you ten that we'll be back here in no time at all consider more sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say the biggest reason for that might be because of how most times restrictions are so what they call "broadly construed" as to make editing nearly impossible to do without somehow being able to construe it as violating your restrictions in some way or another. As someone who has already been through the wringer, I can say you are almost just better off getting the indef and being done with it, than having to deal with the worry of walking on those kinds of eggshells. Huggums537 (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd take those odds. Moreover, if we go through with the WP-space block, the only disruption that they would be able to do would be extremely clear-cut, open-and-shut personal attacks or POINTy editing that would cost the community little further time to address. signed,Rosguill talk 16:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Wikipedia takes "little further time to address". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose indef block; support indef partial block from WP space and t-ban on deletion/notability discussions - Very much as a last chance once the current block has expired. Jack4576's problems largely seem to stem from his involvement in the project space and discussions around deletion/notability. As was noted above, his edits to WP space have skyrocketed in the last month. Legitimate questions around WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE have been raised in support of an indef block; I think Jack deserves one last chance to prove that these concerns are not warranted, without the distraction of notability/deletion discussions. If he can take up 's offer to work productively on Australian law articles without a return to the battleground/bludgeoning behaviour that's got us here, then the p-block/t-ban will be working as an effective preventative measure and no more sanctions will be necessary. I hope that this will help Jack to become more familiar with our notability guidelines and consensus building. If any of this behaviour continues, I would support an indefinite block. WJ94 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Put yourself in Jack's shoes. He just got punished and the very next day, he's being threatened with punishment again before the original punishment even really set in. Any attempts he makes to defend himself are just being seen as bludgeoning. He's being put in a can't win situation. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no. He's put himself in that situation.  Jack is not a rookie.  He's been on Wikipedia for nearly four years, and has made nearly four thousand edits.  There is no excuse for him being ignorant of Wikipedia's policies regarding conduct, tendentious editing, battleground mentality and bludgeoning, nor for what is required of editors under a tban.  Moreover, he brought this on himself: more than one editor (myself included) were strongly influenced in the original discussion by his conduct in that discussion.  It is far from unreasonable to conclude that his further behavior is just more evidence that he's incapable or disinclined to stop swinging his fists.   Ravenswing      18:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PBlock from WP-space solves most of the problem, whilst not disallowing Jack from making useful articlespace edits, which he does. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef block - My opinion is unchanged from three days ago. Jack still manages to not get the point that he has been a massive time sink for the project. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's give MaxnaCarta a chance to work with this editor. I do believe it's possible they could become productive. No objection to a p-block from WP space while that work happens. Valereee (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)*
 * Support limited block, oppose indef per and . Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Partially my fault
I was not at the time aware of Jack's topic ban from AFD, but I believe the initiation of the inciting discussion was my comment in the AFD for FaktorTel, in which I had pinged them, and not the comment made at William Street Bird. I did actually see the response on my talk page as well, but I wasn't easily able to respond at the time. Because I did ping him, it seems a little less bad than if it was initiated in response to Sirfurboy's comment. I would have still advised against starting that discussion, but I'm hoping this context will make people more willing to consider the lighter sanctions like those proposed by MaxnaCarta. (also I'm writing this on my phone, so please excuse any typos and feel free to correct them if wished) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)  Never mind then, I was the one that had the wrong timeline. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's up to the topic-banned editor to avoid the subject they're banned from, not the rest of Wikipedia to keep track of who they should and shouldn't ping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alpha3031: I believe you're mistaken. Jack posted that comment at 10:57, 24 May 2023, while your comment was posted at 14:59, 24 May 2023. The correct diff is the one noted above, posted at 10:27, 24 May 2023, thirty minutes before Jack posted that comment at WT:NCORP. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 08:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it does appear that I had the wrong timeline, not sure why I thought the discussion was started after 1500, maybe I confused it with one of the replies made. I was a little worried I was tetchier than I should have been, and given it was on my radar to reply it surprised me to see it at ANI but given it was unlikely to be closed within 24 hours I guess I could have simply waited. Project-wide indef still seems a little harsh if things might be resolved by a WPspace pblock (with or without broadening the ban), but I'll defer commenting unless and until I review the incident in a bit more detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:212.200.164.106
User at User talk:212.200.164.106 has been creating troll edits for the article at Space-based solar power, he is clearly not here to contribute, but here to vandalise User101FrOas (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User was reported to WP:AIV and blocked for one week by -- A Rose  Wolf  19:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Wikiveve
User talk:Wikiveve has been putting random stuff about human 'excretment' on articles that are completly unrelated to it, he continues after being warned, and also puts it on his sandbox. I believe he is WP:NOTHERE User101FrOas (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for NOTHERE, also could have been for vandal only. Either way they are blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you User101FrOas (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:GoldNotGod and harassment
The user has 26 edits, most of which is harassment of other users ongoing on their user page. In particular, I do not appreciate being called a "Kremlebot". Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked them as WP:NOTHERE due to their editing history. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:24.43.65.58
User talk:24.43.65.58 Is clearly WP:NOTHERE he is on his 4th warning for his blatant vandalism on DaBaby

User101FrOas (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP has already been reported to WP:AIV. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. User101FrOas (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Wikiveve
User talk:Wikiveve has been putting random stuff about human 'excretment' on articles that are completly unrelated to it, he continues after being warned, and also puts it on his sandbox. I believe he is WP:NOTHERE User101FrOas (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for NOTHERE, also could have been for vandal only. Either way they are blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you User101FrOas (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

unsourced POV Pushing at Maleeka Bokhari
An IP (108.44.192.17) has been making unsourced POV Pushing edits over at Maleeka Bokhari, adding unsourced claims of false flag protests, abductions, sham press conference threats of abduction. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Semi'ed, IP blocked for unsourced additions to BLPs. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123
I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account. This account has been engaged in very long edit wars edits on several pages such as the Nazran raid page, which is my first encounter with him. He misrepresents his sources and does original research. I have elaborated on this in the talk page. Before I continue I will note that his account on the Russian wikipedia was notorious for edit warring on the very same article I am talking about (Nazran raid) and he was warned multiple times. He eventually got banned entirely on the Russian wikipedia due to him misrepresenting sources, as shown here.

One of the largest issues following my own investigation is suspicious behaviour that can only remind me of tag-teaming/meat-puppeting which I suspect is outright sockpuppeting with notorious accounts that have been banned already such as,  and  all of which are either suspected socks (mrMalaga, Malhuytaza) or confirmed socks (Targimhoi, Niyskho) of Durdzuketi a banned account that has over 10 confirmed banned socks. Targimhoi and mrMalaga were also involved on the Nazran raid article where I got involved with them. They made much of the same edits and the accounts have been subsequently banned for sock-puppeting. This is the long list of over 10 accounts that have been confirmed as sockpuppets for Dzurdzuketi and banned, including user:Targimhoi. I’ve been checking the recent history of these accounts and there are several reasons for my suspicion of being involved in tag-teaming/meat-puppeting/sock-puppeting.


 * Incredibly consecutive editing. At several points has Wikieditor along with Targimhoi made edits in a very short time difference from each other. Here are examples of edits between Wikieditor and Targimhoi on articles that barely get 1 view per day. Some of these edits are minutes within each other. Note that there is no mention or tagging of each other. Wikieditor edits something on a 1 view per day article and suddenly 5 minutes after Targimhoi takes over.
 * Ex1, 1 minute difference
 * Ex2, 1 hour
 * Ex3, 7 minute difference
 * Ex4, 25 minute difference

The examples above are all on the same lines as the previous editor which you can see on the revisions, and there’s no explanation for the edits that are being done. This reminds of a joint effort. More: Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor and Targimhoi seems to have been involved in numerous disputes and are seen to be backing each other. In my case on the Nazran raid article, they make the same edits and argue for the same stuff, with Targimhoi backing up Wikieditor only an hour after I edited the first time. On the same day my dispute with them was going on, Wikieditor was involved in a noticeboard incident. Targimhoi then appears out of nowhere to express his support for Wikieditor without having been mentioned or pinged anywhere.
 * Editing a sandbox draft for a confirmed sockpuppet of  that make the same disruptive edits. I have no idea of where he found this sandbox draft or what led him to it. mrMalaga is also suspected to be Dzurdzuketi
 * Here Wikieditor is seen editing/expanding on a draft at the same time as user Malhuyataza (confirmed sock of mrMalaga, suspected to be dzurdzuketi) literally under a day after the draft was created. Two other accounts were also seen editing on this draft, and . Both accounts have been banned for sockpuppeting.
 * What seems like very targeted mass edits on Fyappi article. Wikieditor is seen editing with niyskho(another confirmed sockpuppet in the dzurdzuketi list), later on targimhoi jumps in. Looks like a mass targeting of the same page. Again they are not explaining their edits to each other, which further makes me believe they are connected. Edit warring for at least like 2 months.
 * Very long edit wars on articles such as 2004 Nazran raid, Fyappiy, Orstkhoy etc.
 * After checking his revision history I also noticed most of the time he doesn’t explain his edits. This is often done when editing along with accounts that have been banned for sockpuppeting.
 * Original research/misrepresenting sources. He was banned for this very thing on the Russian wiki. Keeps doing it on the English one.
 * Blatant POV-pushing/nationalistic edits, heavy bias. Seems to be insisted on having Ingush written everywhere, evident by the articles I have linked. Very much in style for the 10+ accounts that are socks of Dzurdzuketi


 * I had previously made a post about this on WP:AN, but the post was auto-archived. This is a revision of the following comments made by the subject WikiEditor1234567123 on WP:AN and my replies after. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * With respect to the socking accusation, on February 8, 2023, Wikieditor was alleged to be a sock at Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. made the following comment with respect to the allegation at the SPI: "I did not check WikiEditor1234567123 because I do not see sufficient evidence to warrant a check, but I can report that they did not show up in any of my checks."--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Wikieditor has suspiciously close cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks. I believe enough evidence has been provided to at least warrant a new investigation, especially now that another close account to Wikieditor, Targimhoi (sock of dzurdzuketi) was recently banned. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I have the right to defend myself here. I don't have any cooperation with Durdzuketi's socks, which you mainly argument because of the diffs that you brought up which showed some time differences. Because I mainly edit on Ingush-themed or Caucasian-themed articles and am very active in Wikipedia for most of the part, when I see that an article in my watchlist is edited by someone - I sometimes go immediately "clean-up" the article or correct them. That's why there's sometimes these time differences that you mentioned. Regarding Russian Wikipedia, I was quickly banned there, due to my big mistakes in not providing a source for my claims, that however doesn't stop me from editing on other wikiprojects to make a good contribution. Also note that I was banned there 5 months ago, during this period people change! I immediately understood my mistakes and learned from them, and now I always provide sources for my claims. The other stuff you attributed to me is false as well, saying that I misrepresent sources and edit nationalistically etc. I hope this gives an answer to everything. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Can an admin please take a look at this sock/meatpuppeting case?, , Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like it would be a better fit at WP:SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I move it to SPI then? Even if it includes possible meatpuppeting too? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think SPI deals with meatpuppets, so it could probably just stay here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any other noticeboard I can post this in? It seems like my post isn't getting any attention despite the heap of evidence provided. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI can handle meatpuppetry as well, and given that many cases involve a mix of the two it's worth sending there. I think that the evidence presented here is sufficient to warrant a checkuser investigation, and for that SPI is the place to go. If the results of a checkuser are negative or inconclusive, the behavioral evidence will be evaluated further and either actioned or referred back to ANI for discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, we should probably close this and open a discussion at SPI. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will open a case at SPI. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Rosguill. This is the link for the investigation. Not sure if I did it correctly, could you take a look? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ola Tønningsberg Looks good to me. signed,Rosguill talk 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update for the time being.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Updating this until the SPI is solved Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Sunshine1287
I am User:Sunshine1287. As you can see on my user page, I have declared a conflict of interest: “I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.” I am in-fact, the co-founder of this business and would be happy to verify my identity privately. The only thing I did with my account is create a draft for QOR360 and submitted it to the Articles for Creation queue, where an editor reviewed it and published it. I disclosed my conflict of interest on the Talk page of the draft, but you can no longer see the page because User:Smartse moved the published page to Draft today, then somehow managed to delete the Draft. So there’s no record. But you can see on my user contribution history through, this note: (“Created page with 'I work for QOR360 and will follow Wikipedia’s conflict interest policy on any page related to this business.”) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sunshine1287 and you can see on user Talk page that is was accepted at Articles for Creation by an editor User: Cabrils

Aren’t pages supposed to be discussed for deletion by multiple editors when they’ve been approved at Articles for Creation rather than unilaterally deleted by one person? I don’t know if User:Smartse deleted the page because they don’t think it’s notable or just because they think it’s part of this web of undisclosed paid editing accounts. Can someone please rescue the page and re-publish it? Then if User:Smartse or someone else wants to challenge whether it is notable, they can start a discussion. Also, FYI,User:Smartse didn’t leave the required notice, referenced in the box above, on my user Talk page about this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sunshine1287 Thanks.
 * Why did you ping me? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Related discussion: . Schazjmd   (talk)  21:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User adding nonsense to the sandbox
The majority of this user's edits have been adding nonsense & vandalizing the sandbox since January. Here is an example of their edits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. As you can see at their their talk page, they've recieved a warning in February (which they dismissed) and a warning from me a few minutes ago (which they also dismissed). They've only made 6 constructive copyedits. I believe this user's editing behavior indicates they are WP:NOTHERE, since that sandbox vandalism is pointless and completely unnecessary, and they've repeatedly done so even after being warned. I'm taking this here to ANI because an editor disagreed with my decision to report them to AIV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, this is not blockworthy. PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. From what I can see, all of their mainspace contributions have been constructive. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * So, what is implicitly implied in the comments above is that these are perfectly acceptable things to insert into the sandbox, and therefore cannot result in any block: "hry fred wanna go to ireland no john putin uses the n word no he doesnt fred yes he dies john ok then lets play nintendo wii fred no john wii is dead no its not you sick bastard (john kills fred)", "Bloons blooona tower eefenes is gay is gay", "clztldjfdlyslyxktzylcfkxpgxlyxlyxlhdkyxglsktstodpuc GIGGITU GIGGITY BLASAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH ... OOF OOF OFF OFF OOF OOF." — Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I simply revert such edits and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I must admit this is a little odd. But it is not actionable - the editor's mainspace edits are absolutely fine, and I suppose everyone has their own way of blowing off steam, although I would perhaps suggest Snapdragon keep their nonsensical edits to their personal sandbox. I've seen userpages on here with humorous nonsense at times - it's often just an editor's way of showing their personality. Patient Zerotalk 00:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Roman Reigns Fanboy
So me and this user (Roman Reigns Fanboy) had a dispute on the Emirate of Afghanistan talk page. Eventually a consensus was later established with three editors (me and two others) as a solution and which he later agreed with.

The issue I'm raising here is how he was uncivil in the talk page discussion specifically towards the end by accusing me of bias, saying they had no regret doing it. while also saying stuff like "I don't care if you take offense". 

I felt this was unconstructive toward the editing and dispute and told him he was in bad faith while doing so, and voiced my displeasure from the comments he made by pointing it out and trying and follow "Wikipedia: How to be civil" "Editors can apply peer pressure by voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility occurs; however, some care is required: If the comment is read as an insult, or seems to belittle another editor; the situation could be inflamed further. Peer pressure works best when it comes from friends or people the editor already trusts or respects."

I don't believe the manner of what I said was belittling or meant to be insulting. After the dispute was settled, he told me not to contact him further (which he edited in as I was drafting a reply to what he last said). 

I did notify the user of the ANI, here. 

So I would like an Administrator to review the discussion and possible incident of incivility. Noorullah (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have any regret over what I've said as the user has created a needless dispute and his motivations seemed suspect to me. He has been fighting over a mere addition of "British protected state" which is just three words in the infobox, even while acknowledging that Afghanistan did have such a treaty with Britain. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be best to leave the dispute away from this discussion. The discussion for the dispute already ended on a consensus on the options that it should be removed, or properly clarified, and the consensus went for the clarification option as suggested by me, and sudo. Noorullah (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was also not a needless dispute, since I am working on topics of the region, and same time period, and even planned to expand the same page, I saw fit to also edit the infobox in that manner. Noorullah (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The dispute is what caused me to doubt you in the first place and call you biased. Also you've been fighting over something that is merely three words long and already mentioned in the Emirate of Afghanistan. So yes it was needless. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - you can do more to Assume good faith. It's not impressive reading I have no regret calling you biased because you are User:Noorullah21. Try to avoid making the dispute personal.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do apologize now. Over the past few months I have been both physically and mentally unwell. And I've also found Wikipedia a frustrating place. So sometimes there is an outburst. I think I'll just reduce my time here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Roman Reigns Fanboy I accept your apology, I wish to see no hate between us! I believe you are a valued contributer and I wish to see us be on even grounds, because if we edit in the same topics again, another dispute like this could arise! So it is best to not hold grudges against each other. I also wish to apologize because at the start of the dispute, I believe my explaining was quite poor (as you also called out). Noorullah (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem Noorullah21 and I apologize again. Wikipedia and life has been frustrating for me recently. So sometimes discussions that become drawn out like the one on Emirate of Afghanistan make me frustrated. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect (and unrelated to this ANI discussion), I would like to ask you why you think it is appropriate to have a userbox that says "This user is a Reformist Taliban supporter" on your user page? That question should be raised here, to allow as many users as possible (including admins) to see it, as well as to see your response. I think it would be a serious understatement to say that pro-Taliban stance is controversial, divisive and inflammatory, both on-Wiki and on other platforms as well. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe Reformist Taliban means supporting a more moderate Taliban, rather than Taliban outright. Regardless I don't think even if he did support the group it's against Wiki policies, unless he's being non-neutral about Taliban or others. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As @Roman Reigns Fanboy explained, my stance on the group is specifically with Abdul Ghani Baradar and Mullah Yaqoob who are both moderates and reformists of the Taliban regime, and I hold views against Extreme Ultranationalists such as the current leader like Hibatullah Akhundzada (who are currently riddling and dividing the country with their own stances and interpretations of Sharia law. My pro view stance on this does not apply to the Pakistani Taliban, who are responsible for many terror attacks. I also am against groups such as the Haqqani Network due to their terrorist activities.
 * This is a view I formulated when I went to Afghanistan myself for a while in 2022 and prior. The reason I put this on my userbox is so people know more about me. I don't believe it is offensive nor is it meant to be (especially since I barely touch the aforementioned topics on Afghanistan's more modern history on Wikipedia).
 * I wouldn't consider my view with the Taliban group itself, especially their 1994-2001 regime, but rather with the moderates who aim to reform Afghanistan rather then turning it into a military despotic state with wild interpretations of law and order that Hibatullah Akhundzada has done. @Sundostund I hope this opens up some more context. Noorullah (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly speaking, I don't consider any pro-Taliban views to be acceptable on the project. Such views can hardly be compatible with the values of Wikipedia, and their expression on-Wiki is, at best, completely unnecessary. I also don't think that one can argue for some particular distinction between "moderate" and "extreme" Taliban wings. Hibatullah Akhundzada is the leader of the whole movement, while his official deputies are Abdul Ghani Baradar and Mullah Yaqoob, as well as Sirajuddin Haqqani (who is officially wanted for terrorism-related charges). That speaks alot for itself... Anyway, the world can see how the Taliban rule over Afghanistan look like, and to me (and I am sure many other users), it just isn't normal to see any expression of support for that movement here. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect, @Sundostund the userbox is completely fine on Wikipedia and does not violate any policy guidelines. As you can see on "Userboxes are fun little boxes you can put in your user page to express yourself. They are rectangular and usually contain a picture and text."
 * As such I am expressing myself to what I believe is appropriate. You say it isn't normal to see expression of support, and I would agree, you also do not see many people in Afghanistan/formerly were in Afghanistan (as of recent) also edit on Wikipedia.
 * "Such views can hardly be compatible with the values of Wikipedia"
 * Well I'm not sure what you exactly mean here, the views I have aren't meant to be harmful, and nor do they affect the content I edit (in a span of time). As my focus of editing is mostly within Afghanistan's history prior to the 19th century as of now especially, and rarely does it interlude with the modern day, so I cannot see how this would violate anything (especially if being accused of possibly holding bias).
 * "I also don't think that one can argue for some particular distinction between "moderate" and "extreme" Taliban wings."
 * Well yes you can, there is a large distinction and rift that has grown recently. The webs here dive into them.
 * We even saw the placement of Hasan Akhund as PM to conciliate the hard-liners and moderates of the group as explained on his page and here:
 * There is a clear distinction between Moderates and Hard-liners as explained above. Noorullah (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alongside this..
 * "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." Noorullah (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but it just seems inherently wrong to me when someone try and present the Taliban in any positive light, and that stands for both the "moderate" and the "extreme" wing of the movement. Their appalling treatment of women is well known through the world, as well as their main mission – to return Afghanistan to the Middle Ages, in every way possible. Should that be justified or encouraged here? What would be the next step, in due time? Talking about the "moderate" and the "extreme" wings of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda? Should we forget that the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was (and probably still is) a safe haven for al-Qaeda? No one ever said that editors can display support for extremists of various kinds, and the support for the Taliban seems very extreme to me, regardless of the way someone try to justify it. Any activity along that line shouldn't be allowed here. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 14:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring anon
An anon is using a series of IP addresses to push a POV with non-reliable sources in several articles, for example, in Nathan Altman. How to deal with this? —Michael Z. 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocking for edit warring won’t do much good, so I semied the Nathan Altman article.  Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —Michael Z. 23:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal: Assistance needed
Checkout removed controversies section: link

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha. Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW*, the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
 * WP:NPOVHOW:

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like Public image of Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mamata Banerjee, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, Abhishek Banerjee (politician), T. Rajaiah, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Manohar Lal Khattar, Pinarayi Vijayan, Yogi Adityanath, Himanta Biswa Sarma.

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha
 * edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
 * edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
 * edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
 * edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
 * edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
 * edit 6 - in this he remove
 * edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we disable IP editing for a while?
This is a crazy idea, but this is ridculous.  Mori Calliope fan   talk   01:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That is never going to happen. Disruptive IP's should be individually warned on the talk page and eventually reported to AIV as needed. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is multiple IPs actively vandalizing articles. It is not a simple situation, considering the amount of reports there are at AIV right now.  Mori Calliope fan   talk   02:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect these are open proxies - similar edits are being made from IPs in the Dominican Republic, Spain and Slovenia. There are probably more - those are just the ones I checked.
 * This is a serious attack.
 * I’d be wary of shutting down all IP editing. Even if you did that, this person will keep doing this whenever it’s turned back on.
 * For now, I suggest tuning the edit filter such that rapid IP editing is not just logged as it is now but the IP also blocked after 5 edits. I don’t know how hard this is to do.
 * I expect we’ll see more of this in the future now that someone’s figured this out and developed a taste for it. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have set 1199 to throttle. Will self-revert in 30 minutes max. This should not impact normal IP editing in the vast majority of cases. CC Ingenuity. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See also 1253. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving 1199 on throttle a while longer, still almost all true positives. If this is still going by the time I go to bed, I'll either turn it off or hand off to another EFM. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If Wikimedia ever goes through with removing IP addresses from being publicly visible on edits, we may very well have to permanently disable IP editing. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  05:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. I have supported permanently disabling IP editing for over 15 years, and still do. Every day, I see more evidence that convinces me of this. IP editing enables too many bad actors to game the system for little gain in return. Wikipedia is no longer a new thing that needs to encourage "anyone" to edit. We've been here long enough to have a reputation, and, quite frankly, that reputation is bad enough without allowing all crap and drama that IP editing brings in. BilCat (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, at the risk of canvassing and/or shooting myself in the foot - have you (@BilCat and @Rockstone35) seen this at VPP? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It does mention privacy, which is a much larger concern than it was 20 years ago, and which I didn't mention here, but should have. BilCat (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WOW, I strongly advise noticing stewards ASAP, as they can edit like bots on our project, they can also do the same things on small wikis. @Vermont, will you take a look on this situation? -Lemonaka‎  04:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lemonaka Squirrels are usually asleep at this time of the day.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 04:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was sleepless recently and didn't find it was so late. -Lemonaka‎  04:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not on this day :p Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stewards can do locally to deal with vandalism that admins can't, Lemonaka. That said, stewards are aware and have made global blocks where appropriate. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe they will be aware on time, anyway... -Lemonaka‎  04:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This rapid disruption is not ending. See here and here and here. Can't this be stopped? Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here and here now. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * On a related note, can we start a LTA investigation for this vandal (I'm almost certain this is the work of one vandal with dozens, if not hundreds, of throwaway ips)?$chnauzer 07:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is someone going to do something about this? I can't stay here all day (or night). Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crboyer That's a good idea. We'd have a specific place to discuss this. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 07:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the work of a single vandal who's been active for quite a while. Rest assured, stewards, admins, and CUs are well aware of them. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is being handled, and will go to as high levels as it needs to. There's not much left to do but play Whac-a-Mole, which I appreciate from the other side of the fence looks pretty similar to doing nothing (right up until it doesn't), but just please know, Nythar, that this isn't being ignored, and I thank you for your efforts in reverting and reporting the disruption. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 08:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeeah, they stopped? -Lemonaka‎  15:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Relating to User:A. B.'s conjecture that these are open proxies, WP:OP/R has a growing backlog, and it looks like it hasn't been patrolled in almost 3 weeks, if any admins would like to tackle some of them. Mojoworker (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not expect this thread to take off while I was away for a bit. It appears this vandalism is still going on unfortunately.  Mori Calliope fan   talk   22:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:186.44.236.157
The user at User talk:186.44.236.157 is randomly putting Names on articles, like he did at Margetuximab and Mount Browning and among alot of other articles, if you look at his contributions User101FrOas (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm noticing a large influx of IP users inserting random names in random articles, using also-random names as the only edit summary. They're everywhere on Recent Changes. What's going on? WhoAteMyButter  ( 🌴talk │ ☀️contribs ) 20:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I belive they have some sort of bot they are using to automate this User101FrOas (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a day for DE. Courcelles (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is a short list of the IPs I've encountered:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/156.226.5.144
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.188.51.99
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.219.232.17
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.54.90.74
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.218.75.86
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.217.113.79
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.196.10.95
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.83.222.61
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.191.49.24
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2803:1500:1202:7AD1:E1C1:D7EB:787B:BD33
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2407:5200:400:9483:1D46:3FEE:F66B:3AEA
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.191.144.13
 * The list goes on and on. WhoAteMyButter  ( 🌴talk │ ☀️contribs ) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Being discussed above. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 20:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is some organised group of people who are all vandalising, the ip ranges are different so I don't belive this is the same person, and most proxies are detected User101FrOas (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's one person.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 20:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Whackamole played with that list. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another one.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 20:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Get your own mop. (Blocked). Courcelles (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I might just do that.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will, do you want an RFA for you? -Lemonaka‎  23:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, not yet.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 00:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up with that mop, @Courcelles. :) -- A Rose Wolf  20:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug. If you have private filter access, please install User:Suffusion of Yellow/abusecontribs.js, and go to . Click "Check for edits" in the sidebar, click on the contributions of the users highlighted in red, and rollback or undo anything problematic. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just cleaned up after an edit by this vandal that slipped through recent changes patrol at 1928–29 Luxembourg National Division * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 13:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked all IP's that I had reverted and only found . There may be others from IP's that I did not revert. -- A Rose Wolf  13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:MaranoFan making false accusations of stalking, bad faith, and malicious intent
Regretfully, I have opened a section on this page because User:MaranoFan has refused to retract lies they wrote about me and is falsely accusing me of acting in bad faith. I apologize for the length, but I need to clear my name.

23:19, May 14, 2023 MaranoFan opens Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1.

00:42, May 15, 2023 As I was on WP:FAC at the exact same minute adding comments at 23:19, May 14, 2023 to a different review, I noticed MaranoFan's nomination and made comments. (I wasn't stalking their edit history looking for their next nomination and how I could "derail" it). At the end of the review, I wrote that "Overall I wish the nomination was more prepared. For example, MOS:CONFORMTITLE has been brought up by three different reviewers in four of the nominator's last seven FACs, and yet it is mostly ignored again. I would have expected it to be addressed before nominating at this point." Having reviewed some of MaranoFan's previous nominations, I found it a bit odd for an experienced editor to nominate multiple articles with the same issues and fail to prepare future nominations based on previous feedback. Reviewers have limited time, and pointing out the same things every other nomination is frustrating. I could have written "oppose", but in good faith did not as I believed most of the comments could be addressed quickly.

07:31, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the comments.

09:59, May 15, 2023 I add two follow-ups.

15:47, May 15, 2023 MaranoFan addresses the follow-ups.

04:35, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments at Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 : "the Spotify/Apple Music refs do not seem to confirm to MOS:CONFORMTITLE. This should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there, lol."

06:46, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page: "Since your initial opposition to my nomination was strongly worded, I think it would be good if it was explicitly indicated in the form of a !vote that you are satisfied with the changes, so as to not turn away prospective reviewers. Thank you in advance."

To write on a reviewer's talk page asking them to !vote less than 36 hours after the review began is bizarre. I was about to support, but being basically guilted into making a vote offended me. There was never any indication that I wouldn't support, and I was mostly off Wikipedia at the time, so I really don't understand why MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page when the review was less than two days old and the nomination was less than two days old. It's not like my temporary lack of a !vote was "holding up" promotion. Again, there wasn't even an "oppose" to strike, and yet MaranoFan described my original comments as "opposition". I just hadn't written "support" yet because I hadn't come back to the FAC and checked if my follow-up comments were addressed. For that, MaranoFan felt the need to come to my talk page? No other editor has ever done that. This felt very over the top and points to their false belief that I have an agenda against them. I have never even opposed any of their past nominations, so I don't understand where their anxiety is coming from.

16:38, May 16, 2023 I had been tracking progress at Peer review/My Man (Tamar Braxton song)/archive1 and planned on making comments as I had frequented many of that nominator's projects before (Again, not "stalking" MaranoFan's edit history). But combined with their comment there and the—in my opinion ridiculous—request on my talk page, I felt disrespected and wrote on Featured article candidates/Takin' It Back/archive1: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process." Given that the MOS:CONFORMTITLE "moan" comment came less than 24 hours after I noted MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues on their FAC, I logically inferred that MaranoFan was referring to my comments. I took that as a slight because I am simply reviewing to the WP:FACR criteria, which includes following the MOS. I expect others to have respect for the process and not consider noting MOS issues a "moan". Sorry if that sounds corny, but when I spend an hour reviewing an article, I expect a little respect for the process.

16:59, May 16, 2023 MaranoFan moves the entire review to the FAC talk page, writing in the edit summary: "Moved to talk to reduce page loading time as user has expressed wish to withdraw from the review process." Nowhere did I ever "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". In fact, I said "Everything has been addressed", indicating that the review was complete, not that I withdrew. Just because there isn't a "support" vote doesn't mean the reviewer "withdrew" the review. MaranoFan blatantly lied that I "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process". I never said that explicitly nor implicitly. They moved the review to the talk page under false pretenses.

This is not the first time MaranoFan has lied that I have withdrawn from reviews of their FACs. 16:18, November 8, 2022 they accused me of "Abandoning completed source and prose reviews on my nomination". In fact, I had not come back to it (for one day... the horror) because they never indicated that my follow-up comment at 19:56, November 7, 2022 was addressed. In good faith, I then voted to support promotion and passed the source review after reviewing the nominated article's revision history. But nominators are supposed to indicate when changes have been made; it's not the reviewers job to go into the edit history for every comment and see what happened. Through their multiple lies about my "expressed wish to withdraw from the review process" and "abandoning completed source and prose reviews", MaranoFan has maligned my reputation at WP:FAC. They are implying that I randomly withdraw from reviews in bad faith, which is untrue. Their consistent language of "abandoning" and "withdraw" when I don't provide a !vote indicates that they fundamentally do not understand the WP:FAC review process. Nominations are not entitled to a !vote just because prose comments are addressed.

05:27, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on FAC coordinator 's talk page, stating: "Hi, Gog! I wanted to ask if you could review my new FAC. I liked some of your recent reviews, and it would be a good confidence building measure after someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards (my nom would be eligible for the same award) tried to derail it by starting political arguments." This is another lie and aspersion that I set out to ruin their nomination. They have a, quite frankly, worrying preconceived notion that I am out to "get them" and that my comments on their FAC are there to intentionally "derail it" because I am apparently in a Four Award rivalry with them and thus don't want it to pass. This is just so absurd. I have one Four Award, which I self-nominated two years after I was eligible (I would actually have two, but chose not to do a DYK for the other one). MaranoFan is casting baseless aspersions. Where is the evidence I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards" and that that influenced my review? They are apparently irked that I recently created and nominated Clown (Mariah Carey song) for DYK and GA (which they indicated they would review). MaranoFan is reading into things that are not there and are trying to create drama where none exists.

08:01, May 17, 2023 Gog the Mild comments on the FAC talk page.

08:32, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan replies, implying that I stalked them.

11:59, May 17, 2023 I reply, asking MaranoFan to retract their lies and aspersions about my edits and intentions.

13:29, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan responds.

14:47, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan comments on my talk page, saying I should defer to their talk page for comments.

14:50, May 17, 2023 I strike the comments implying a personal attack on me from the FAC review.

14:49, May 17, 2023 I indicate this on MaranoFan's talk page and ask that they reciprocate by retracting their lie about my purported withdrawal from the review and baseless aspersions about why I reviewed the FAC to begin with.

16:42, May 17, 2023 MaranoFan refuses and says that my actions "blatantly indicates malicious intent".

MaranoFan has put words in my mouth and refused to retract when given multiple chances, even when I did the same for them by striking certain comments. They have cast bizarre aspersions about me derailing their FAC nomination to win a Four Award competition to which I have no knowledge of. They seem to have preconceived notions that I continuously act in bad faith toward them as part of some secret agenda, which I find disturbing. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This user was not active on this peer review before my comments, and it is considered "too large to display" on WP:PR, there is almost no way they stumbled upon it through anything except going through my contributions. This comment was based on a misunderstanding, I just did not bother striking it since it was made on this user's own talk page. It, under no circumstances, "maligned [their] reputation at WP:FAC", as no one except them saw it. Heartfox, meanwhile, has pursued their outrageous aspersion based on a lie (which explicitly maligns my respect for the FAC process, and I have documented in the section below), at public pages like my nomination at FAC, which is currently transcluded right near the top of WP:FACGO and is amplified to the whole FAC community (pageviews: 312, 198). Pretending that this minimal amount of striking changes anything is ridiculous, since it is still clearly a bad faith comment. Yes, I have taken up a review of their current GAN because I wanted to thank them for their participation on my last few FACs. I took that up in good faith before they cast their aspersion on my nomination, not sure how that means I am "irked"... The above paragraph is just a bunch of random things thrown together to distract from their bad faith comment at my FAC, which they are fighting desperately to get restored for visibility at the main FAC page.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Aspersions and bullying from User:Heartfox

 * Filing report I had been drafting as a subsection.

User:Heartfox produced a review for an article, slightly over an hour after I nominated it at FAC, which was unusually pessimistically worded and seemed off right away. Within the one hour of me having nominated it, they had self-admittedly gone through seven of my prior successful FACs looking for something that could be used to call my current FAC underprepared, which is an unusual amount of dedication as well. I addressed their decently lengthy review within a few hours. At this point, the nomination was going well and attracted a second review which was more positive. A while later, Heartfox was back and admitted their whole review had been addressed, but instead of supporting the nomination, they picked out a bit from a completely different peer review I had conducted recently (which did not involve or mention them whatsoever), and cast a bad faith WP:ASPERSION that would negatively impact future reviewer participation, that read: "Everything has been addressed, but because the nominator has characterized my indication of MOS:CONFORMTITLE issues as "moaning", I am not in a position to support as this feels disrespectful to my time and the process.". Since this included an admission that 100% of their comments had been addressed, and that they would refuse to further participate by indicating a !vote, I moved it to the talk page, something I had seen coords do before and that seemed relatively uncontroversial to me. They are now campaigning to get the aspersions restored on the main review page, despite it being pointed out again and again that my comment was not about them. They have now struck two words in their comment but it is still worded in a way which discourages reviewer participation on my nomination. They are now leaving passive aggressive messages on my talk page, and are still stalking my contributions and quoting comments I made on other users' talk pages. They have stated a bunch of times that all of their comments have been addressed, but they refuse to support my nomination which I think is indicative of their intentions. I am sorry but this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass me, which they concocted within minutes of me nominating this article. This user is an FAC frequenter, and I will not feel safe ever nominating another article if nothing is done about it. I apologize for bringing this to ANI but I have put in blood, sweat and tears developing my reputation at FAC over the years, and I think seeking an IBAN with this user to preserve it is worth it.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not much to add, Heartfox seems to have ran to ANI because I had indicated I will start a discussion about them here if their bullying continues. This seems like an effort to beat me in time to add some sort of credibility to their defense. And by bringing up some interaction between us from November 2022, that I had long forgotten about, they seem to have confirmed they were holding a grudge against me during their initial review itself. Given that they have now started a discussion to embarrass me here, after attempting this on my review page and by pinging FAC coords on its talk page multiple times (and now here), I am now formally seeking an IBAN as this has become too much to deal with.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would appear that a two-way IBAN would be helpful for both of you. Any thoughts? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting crazy. MaranoFan is mad that I had the audacity to refer to their previous nominations and how they are wasting reviewers' time with the same issues. I was involved in those past FACs and was one of the previous reviewers; of course bringing up previous nominations is relevant. I simply did basic research to get the exact number so as to not cast aspersions with no evidence, as MaranoFan has done repeatedly over the past few days. They continue to feel entitled to a support !vote and that its absence somehow indicates I had malicious intent going into the review and "concocted" a plan to embarrass them. MaranoFan has still not retracted the lies they wrote about my edits and intentions, and are now casting new aspersions. An IBAN because this user cannot take basic criticism, which, again, did not even involve an "oppose", seems like an attempt to evade any criticism of their FACs. Heartfox (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is "evading any criticism of their FACs", all content-related comments at my FAC were met constructively and addressed. The last five paragraphs of essays written on my FAC have involved absolutely nothing related to the article in question. I am not sure why this user came to ANI if they are not seeking an IBAN. Seems to confirm that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING to embarrass me on different pages and to get someone to validate their hatred for me. Everyone has not died. There are other people who can raise content-related issues on my future FACs. The fact that they are writing essays upon essays about how bad I am yet oppose an IBAN absolutely foreshadows such disruption repeating on my future projects. They had previously stated they would avoid me in the future, but they sought drama at another one of my nominations. This is a repeat habit with this user and they seem to enjoy publically bullying others to apologize. It is also worth noting they started an ANI discussion about me a few hours after I explicitly asked to be left alone. I am not sure how they want me to "retract" something I said in an edit summary... This blatant WP:ASPERSION intended to character-assasinate me to prospective reviewers is disruptive, it is not related to improvement of the article in question. I would be fine if they just did not support, but they left a comment to intentionally dissuade others from reviewing my FAC. If they had a problem with my comments at another PR it should have been brought to my talk page.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what would you recommend? QuicoleJR (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That they be blocked for incivility unless they retract/strike their lie about my purported "wish to withdraw from the review process", their aspersion that I am "someone who seems to be competitive about Four Awards", their aspersion that I am "still stalking [their] contributions", their aspersion that "this seems like a dedicated campaign to embarrass [them], which [I] concocted", their aspersion that I am "bullying" them, and their aspersion that I "ran to ANI" because MaranoFan had indicated they might do so (As I said at the top, I did so because they refused to retract lies after being given multiple opportunities). I have now struck the entire "moan" comment. Heartfox (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. I will leave this to an admin to make a decision. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking seems random. FAC pages get a lot of views so I want the offtopic comment removed entirely. Once that's done, I am ready to hear what the other user wants me to delete.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not random, I was following WP:RUC. Nonetheless, I have removed the stricken text per your request. Heartfox (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this an improvement? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * QuicoleJR, thank you so much for following this so closely and talking to me respectfully. I have never needed this more than in the past two days. Anyways, I have the same position about the IBAN.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 20:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Marano. I know from experience how stressful the site can be at times, so I have been trying to counteract that for others. One question: Do you still support an IBAN? Your comment on that was a bit ambiguous. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is a necessary step to prevent disruption going forward in my opinion. I am firm on that stand. The fact that I have been badmouthed as much as I have been over here but a voluntary IBAN has been refused makes me seriously question what's in store for the future. I haven't slept at all since this discussion erupted, and I doubt anybody here wants a repeat of this. A long-term solution like an IBAN is necessary. This section is getting lengthy so I'll leave the discussion to third parties now.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan
Starting a separate section to formally propose an IBAN, since above sections are too swarmed by long comments. The issues go further than just a few comments needing to be struck and comments from back in November 2022 have also been highlighted, indicating there are recurring problems with our interactions which are not bound to improve in the future. Voluntary IBAN has been rejected by the other user.
 * Support IBAN as proposer.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for now. This seems warranted, and it does not look like the situation will improve, as they do not seem to be able to come to a compromise. However, the IBAN should exclude this ANI thread. All other ANI threads would be included, just not this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Temporarily struck because the situation may be improving. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As there has been no visible progress since I struck my comment, I am restoring it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have supported every FAC MaranoFan has nominated that I made a review for, and was about to for the most recent one until they harassed me at my talk page. If MaranoFan does not want a frequent support vote at their FACs, that's fine with me. They are the one who always comes to my talk page finding something wrong with my reviews. I really do not think about them as much they think I do. Why would I spent an hour reviewing in order to embarrass them. It's because I think the article has merit, not because I have some grudge against them. If I didn't like them I wouldn't have reviewed in the first place -_- They continue to try and drag me into their own muck. Heartfox (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Seems intractable at this point. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If this proposal is successful, we will need to G6 this. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I was uncertain about participating in this discussion. I have immense respect for both of these editors. It is a shame to see things between them go into this direction. I believe this is the best solution for this issue. I support MaranoFan's proposal for a two-sided IBAN. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Holy mother of pointless pettiness, did you two leap-frog eachother in making mountains of molehills, until an extremely minor disagreement about etiquette became a grudge match of wills. Even so, I have over the years become an extreme skeptic about the utility and wisdom of IBANs, believing that they are usually unnecessary and invite more problems than they solve, shifting responsibility from the users under the sanction to comport with basic behavioral guidelines and instead putting the community in the role of having to referee the bounds of their interactions.  So I only support interaction bans where a fair number of criteria are met, and if it makes sense in the context of the volunteer workspace the two editors share.  Here, I think it makes sense based on the context and nature of the underlying dispute, the distance between the two editors in coming to a meeting of the minds (as well some degree of intractability from both on just dropping the matter outright), the lack of other obvious community actions that can be taken under these circumstances, the impact of the IBAN upon each party (including the need of workarounds required to maintain the ban), and all other relevant factors.


 * Now, obviously MaranoFan has no objection to the IBAN. And HeartFox, while not all the blame for amping this situation up can be laid at your feet, I have to tell you that I view the filing here at ANI to have been excessive and unnecessary (if not outright histrionic) in the circumstances, so I'm inclined to say you're just going to have to live with this suboptimal outcome.  I'm not really sure what heavier and unilateral sanction for MF you saw us handing out here on account of this whole tempest in a teapot, but I reluctantly have to agree that in this case the IBAN seems to be the only formal action that fits the disruption, such as it is.  Both of you walking away voluntarily from this showdown over minor perceived slights to your honesty and reputation would have been better for everyone, but here we are.  <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> 03:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I struck the comment MaranoFan felt was unfair, struck it more upon their request, and removed it entirely upon their request. They continue to do no such thing for their aspersions toward me, including lying about my actions (that I abandon FAC reviews in bad faith), lying about my intentions (They went to an FAC coordinator's talk page and said I concocted a plot to ruin their FAC because I want more Four Awards than them). They say I stalk them and have personal "hatred" for them. I do not consider accusing someone of hatred, stalking, and malicious intent "minor" slights. Why would I voluntarily allow myself to be maligned like this? I do not regret coming to ANI at all. Heartfox (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've reviewed every single page and diff you supplied above to support the conclusion you are being unduely maligned, and what I see is two editors who both failed to AGF at every possible checkpoint, and showed absolutely no restraint necessary to de-escalate at each point that one of you did take offense and decided you were being misrepresented. That's honestly my take on the way both of you comported yourselves here.  And the statements that were made about you are so far below the threshold for a WP:PA that would benefit from community attention that I can't view your filing here as anything but an extremely poor use of community time.


 * But even if we were to credit you as the more aggrieved party here, and even if we agreed that you had done more to try to avoid aggravating the disagreement prior to bringing this to ANI, have you considered this tactic: just ignoring the comments? If nothing else, try to have some faith in your fellow editors here: we see hyperbolic complaints about being hounded, hurt feelings, needless personalization of routine actions, and the silly assumption of malevolent motives all the time here: no experienced community member takes these claims seriously without a substantial demonstration of real evidence of harassment.  No one was going to walk away from seeing those comments on a random FAC and think, "Oh, that HeartFox person is clearly a right wanker, I'm going to pass word along!"


 * The stakes here were so incredibly low, and you could (and should) have just walked away at any number of points, but instead the two of you had to play nothing-accusation chicken until you brought the matter here. Seriously a very, very silly dispute over essentially nothing, and I wish the result had just been a trout for both of you.  But each additional comment from either of you makes it clear you still cannot just back away from this nonsense.  So I guess an IBAN it is. Believe me, not my first choice, but your mutual display of thin skin seems to make it inevitable at this point, so we might as well implement the ban to stem the waste of community output on this inanity. <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> 05:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Snow Rise. Both editors had the chance to walk away and show their class, but instead actively sought out this lame grudge match. A pretty shabby episode in their histories, it must be said. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Iban because it is obviously needed based on the above. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Request removal of name from talk pages
A couple of Wikipedia editors usernames ElKevbo and username MrOllie have been harassing me and my family and various other celeb friends and colleagues at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts archives talk page, The Florida Institute of Technology talk page and even an obscure religious tv show The World Tomorrow talk page, as well as at the Wikipedia page for our uncle Melvin Wine. User MrOllie has visited all those pages today in violation of Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to harassment WP: HA which enjoins any editor from harassing a private person of the general public. In one instance editor MrOllie makes note at the edit he made at Melvin Wine Wikipedia page in February of this year, in his comment he wrote the individual is non notable. That individual is me. I want my name removed from All of Wikipedia. The posts and blogs made by your editors are completely fabricated and false, largely 90 percent total utter nonsense. For example in the Wikipedia talk page at The World Tomorrow (TV and radio) editor MrOllie visited this morning to revert previously redacted name(s), and he reinstated my name there this morning, just out of spite evidently, years after it had been redacted, well I have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of this religious tv show. It went off the air when I was in high school. Otherwise I did attend the colleges but I only work behind the scenes in film and tv and I’m not famous like a few of my family members who do have Wikipedia pages. NOR do I ever want to be! Please won’t someone here remove my name from these talk pages and simply leave me alone.

I believe ElKevbo and MrOllie have worked together to harass me, for some strange reason, and this has been going on for many months, if not years. We assume they just don’t have any other hobbies or anything better to do with their time other than editing Wikipedia, and they appear to be enjoying focusing on me and tormenting and harassing me reverting and adding my name to this crap!

A review of their combined edits and contributions pages will prove that are engaged in not just violating your three revert rule, but also directly harassing me by continuing to add my name to those pages - with the sole purpose to harass me.

Nobody is searching for my name at Wikipedia, or Google or anyplace else for that matter. Most people cannot even properly spell my name. And I do not even go by my given name, so why are these two Wikipedia editors and other editors harassing me in this absurd manner? It’s perverse. And it IS harassment of a private anonymous person.

I am asking for anybody’s assistance to redact my name from these pages and just asking you to please, leave me ALONE, in accordance with the WP: HA policy.

I believe these two editors MrOllie and ElKevbo should be sanctioned for their tag team effort to harass me by continuously adding back my name, to these articles, when they have repeatedly been asked nicely to redact it and to stop reverting (adding it back again).

Thank you for your time, understanding and assistance

Respectfully

~ Ted

ps My friend actress Lacey Chabert and I have a joint restraining order which never expires against a fan of hers who stalked she and I for over a decade in person and online. We believe he may be behind all of this, or perhaps he has reached out to certain other Wikipedia editors to aid in is ongoing efforts to circumvent the court order by cyberstalking she and I. The judge attached a big list of URL to his court order. We may need to add the aforementioned Wikipedia URL’s webpages to that order as this man describes himself as a hacker and computer expert, if you are unable or unwilling to abide by the WP: HA policy and permanently redact my name from Wikipedia as requested. 2600:1009:B160:D70B:1AE:7E39:6AD2:14AD (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A long and confusing text, providing absolutely no diffs, will convince nobody of anything. And I'd strongly advise you to read No legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , and . As they appear to have been dealing with the issues at American Academy of Dramatic Arts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for block evasion, and I guess we could throw some NLT in there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're curious about what's going on here, you can see This BLPN section and/or The Garnerted SPI case MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any edits by MrOllie or ElKevbo that aren't reverting the edits of a thrice-confirmed sockpuppeteer at any of the pages mentioned. Frankly, if OP wanted to be left alone and anonymous, he'd do himself a world of good by not relitigating the same thing ad nauseam on a public-facing noticeboard and clumsily breaching his ban to make edits that make it all the more obvious who he is. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 01:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the thinly veiled legal threat might justify a longer block Sundayclose (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * They won't be on that IP address long enough for it to matter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Courtesy link to what I believe is the same person as above: -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User talk:2A02:C7C:D0D4:4300:C1AA:7FED:A92B:F6A7
User talk:2A02:C7C:D0D4:4300:C1AA:7FED:A92B:F6A7 Put in their edit summary,, in article 1991 in British television User101FrOas (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Summary has been OS'd and I've blocked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User101FrOas (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ingenuity I think a block longer than 31 hours is merited. looking at the contributions from the /64 over the last couple of months there are multiple death threats  a threat to "find" another user  "stupid irish" racist bullshit  and a ton of generally uncivil comments     192.76.8.86 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I must have forgot to check the /64's contributions. Blocked for 3 months. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Richmountain112
Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Edit warring to include content cited to a fandom Wiki in the List of fictional aircraft (note latest edit summary in particular ). Made a pointy edit to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, with an edit summary "Fixed bias. You pretty much depreciate anything that isn't far-left". No other significant edits to article space. Almost their entire edit history consists of creating content on fictitious railroads in their sandbox. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for a personal scratchpad or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Need help on formatting PROD or CSD
Been a long time since I've created a PROD or a Speedy Delete, and I think I missed a step or two. I got this far: List of fictional religions, but I don't see it listed anywhere for admins to see. What did I miss? — Maile (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * When you want to nominate for speedy deletion, you use the template for the specific type. In this case it would be db-g5 MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Maile66: The account was compromised, so it wasn't created by the user who got banned, hence why I declined the PROD/speedy deletion per G5.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 21:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks to both of you. — Maile  (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

LTA messing up my userpages
Please block them. Anyway, they've moved my user page and talk page somewhere. Could someone who understands this complexity please revert those changes? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked them and moved the pages back. DanCherek (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The whining about blocked without warning reminds me of someone I blocked this past week who vowed to return. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra: And now this user is doing it again. Could you please block them & ECP my user page and talk page from moves? Thanks. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 18:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A 48-hour semi on Articles for deletion/Trevor Jacob plane crash as well as the most recent articles Nythar has commented on at AfD would help this chap get bored sooner, I reckon. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 18:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

2001:268:9800::/40
An editor in this range has been persistently making unsourced edits to articles, mostly about Japanese sports. Examples from Matsuzaka Generation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Their changes are not identical each time, so technically they're not edit warring, but their edits are repeatedly reverted and they just go on and reedit the article with similar content. A common edit is to add the sentence "He is Matsuzaka Generation." to articles about various people. I don't know if this is accurate but it seems unlikely since Matsuzaka Generation refers to Japanese baseball players but the editor has added this to articles about judoka (here), comedians (here), actors (here), politicians (here), and skaters (here), as well as non-Japanese baseball players (here and here). They have never provided a source for any of their changes and have never used a talk page. They have been bouncing around various IPs in the 2001:268:9800::/40 range so it's hard to communicate with them, but they have been warned by at least 8 other editors (here, here, here, here, twice here and twice here). I have notified them of this report on the talk page for the latest IP they've used (here). CodeTalker (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: IP Range is still at it. I just reverted 9 edits by IP Range in Matsuzaka Generation for WP:RS (warning) and this edit adding the Matsuzaka Generation category to Def Tech, a Japanese Pop band. —  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 more: unsourced edits (final warning) —  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 19:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

User:NickKremm
It appears that they are WP:NOTHERE. They wrote a draft article about themselves that was speedy deleted G11, and then they recreated the identical puff piece. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Assistance providing guidance to User:Thewriter006
I am requesting assistance explaining to User:Thewriter006 civility norms. See the discussion here. I have also browsed their recent contributions and they appear out of the norm. 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment on his talk page isn't going to draw a sanction. You will have to link much better examples if you expect action on a civility claim.  There is a difference in expressing one's opinion crudely, and attacking other editors.  Nothing to see on that talk page, and I'm not likely to dig up a bunch of diffs, which is your job if you are making a claim against someone.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I looked over the discussion and the two linked edit summaries, and they're both BLP violations. He also made a BLP violation on Talk:World Chess Championship 2021, today, which was reverted: . you need to stop editing and read Biographies of living persons very carefully before saying anything else about Magnus Carlsen. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This user clearly has maturity issues, and does not appear to understand the purpose of wikipedia. Their user page clearly shows they are treating it like a social media site. WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR are applicable. They mostly edit talk pages, but these edits include a lot of problematic and BLP-violating content. If they want to keep on editing they'd better read and absorb WP:NOT and WP:BLP, fast. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've given the user CTOP alert for BLP. --Stylez995 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't think that is going to be very effective. An admin needs to take him aside and warn him about what wikipedia is and isn't for. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have any of their edits ever indicated that they know what Wikipedia is for? 50.234.234.35 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears Thewriter006 has made several neutral to positive contributions since being alerted to this issue. Thank you for the help. It might also be worthwhile to keep an eye on Thewriter006's contributions given their sprawling off-site campaign to disparage Magnus Carlsen (which can be easily found by following the biographical information they have included on their userpage). 7d9CBWvAg8U4p3s8 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Belteshazzar (yet again)
Please can somebody take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar (see LTA case for context) and block the two latest sockpuppet IPs? Block/ban evasion and vandalism (as well as stalking) has been going on at a slow but steady rate for quite a few hours and it needs to be knocked on the head. Maybe also consider extending the blocks on some of the other IPs/ranges in order to make this less of a game of whack-a-mole? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that no admin action was taken from the last report on this noticeboard last week but his recent proxy has now been blocked . I think we are all fed up with this now, I have previously reported his stalking in January . I have sent an email to the WMF, you can find the email on Global Ban Policy. I have had to put up with the stalking for over a year and a half, it is a type of long-term harassment. Belteshazzar should be globally banned. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Belteshazzar has been socking on Margaret Darst Corbett since 2020, also he's now back on Charles Ingram. It's probably worth requesting protection for these articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Solomon The Magnifico
I am reporting a user named @Solomon The Magnifico for repeatedly removing important facts from the article on Bangladesh. The user has stated that they believe the article is too long for readers to read, and that other articles on the same topic are not as long. However, the article on Bangladesh is a comprehensive and well-sourced resource that provides important information about the country. The user's actions are not only harmful to the quality of the article, but they are also a violation of the site's policies on vandalism and harassment.

In addition to removing important facts, the user has also been removing other people's work without providing adequate reasoning. This is also a violation of the site's policies. I believe that the user's actions are harmful to the site and to the community as a whole. I urge you to take action against this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imamul Ifaz (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, @Imamul Ifaz, but from what I'm seeing, Solomon The Magnifico is right: the intro you put on Bangladesh is WAY too long to read comfortably.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your opinion. But it was not edited by me singlehandedly. The people who wrote the war and history section made it way much broader than usual. I have mostly written insights which represents the country's current situation as a whole. There are much bigger intros such as India and China. I have given basic information about countries achievements and future goals. I believe I have not broken any Wikipedia Policy. Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead (AKA intro) of an article is only supposed to cover the basics. Further details are intended to go into a section of the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Imamul, did you use a LLM to write this report? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what LLM is. Would you please elaborate? Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An LLM is a large language model, basically an AI User101FrOas (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you are talking about ChatGPT and other AI language models. I would like to inform you that I do not use them as a conversation generator. Thank you Imamul Ifaz (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Imamul Ifaz, you and Solomon have each made one comment on the talk page about this matter. This is a content dispute. Please continue the conversation on that article's talk page to reach consensus. (Another editor disagreeing with your changes is not vandalism or harassment.) Schazjmd   (talk)  19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose we close this and Imamul can air his complaints in the thread started about him. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See the ongoing thread about the reporter. —Alalch E. 20:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support closure proposal as this is more of a content dispute and the other thread seems to be the more pressing issue. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 12:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Revoke 2600:1003:B030:A34C:0:18:8003:EE01 talk page access
Can an admin please revoke 2600:1003:B030:A34C:0:18:8003:EE01's talk page access for NLT and PAs? Thank you! – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 10:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ for half a yer (a bit longer than the duration of the range block)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Solomon The Magnifico keeps vandalizing the article without any adequete reason
Solomon The Magnifico, this user keeps targeting my contributions and keeps changing them to the previous versions (sometimes adding notes of his own preference) in the article on Bangladesh. I have tried to talk to him through the article's talk page, but he keeps talking about irrelevant matters and lying. He said that "institution" is a word not affiliated with a university, implying that I cannot refer to a university as an institution. He also falsely accused me of not stating the importance of the institution in Bangladeshi education, while it was him who said it was the largest university in Bangladesh without any reference.(ref) (ref) He also falsely accused me of stating that the parliament building was an institution, but I had no affiliation with that matter.(ref) When I explained the definition of "institution" and questioned his English knowledge, he claimed I was personally attacking him. He then proceeded to remove other work, such as the article's festival section and religion section.(ref) I changed the linked images in the religion section as they didn't represent the country's religion. One of them was a photo of a dargah, which is not affiliated with a religion but rather a belief, and only a small population believes in dargah worship. I changed the image to the largest Buddhist temple in Bangladesh as it represents the Buddhist religion of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and is also a major site for tourism, well known. He also reverted the image in the festival section (ref). I already explained to him that the image used in the section depicted a sport rather than a festival. The image I used was of an Eid prayer, which is a major festival in Bangladesh. He claimed that Eid didn't represent Bangladesh's culture without providing any particular proof or reference, although I can provide proof that it is the biggest festival in Bangladesh from the Bangladeshi government website.[https://mexico.mofa.gov.bd/en/site/page/Festivals-and-Celebrations-of-Bangladesh#:~:text=Eid%20ul%2DFitr,in%20the%20morning. (ref)] I warned him on the talk page not to WP:VAN (vandalize) the article without proper explanation. All he had to say was that I can't use "institution" for a university. There are two other users who were very supportive of him in the previous dispute.(ref) They are: QuicoleJR and Alalch E.. However, in this case, they seem very quiet and not very talkative. I believe they may be sock puppets, but I don't have any proof at the moment. I believe Wikipedia is a free, user-friendly space to share information and knowledge. This is what the WP:POLICY says. But this is harassment and bullying. I hope the admins will take necessary steps to help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imamul Ifaz (talk • contribs)
 * Why the new thread? You could have just added this message to the other thread you started. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 19:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Imamul Ifaz, I think it would be good if you were to take a step back for a little, then return in a few days. I say this for several reasons.
 * You have, , accused other editors of misconduct without providing evidence. You have done that in this very report. This is considered a  personal attack (see bullet 6). You should, at the very least, provide evidence or strike the accusations here immediately. (For the record, these include accusations of vandalism, wikihounding, and sockpuppetry.) In the future, do not accuse others of misconduct without evidence. I feel you've now been amply warned about this.
 * You seem to be displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. From reading the talk page at Bangladesh, it seems that every time an editor disagrees with you, you view them as an enemy. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; treating other editors as enemies is a good way to get shown the door.
 * Having looked through the talk page, the article history, and the diffs you provided, I don't see any wrongdoing by Solomon the Magnifico, with the exception of the minor edit warring which you are also participating in. I do see that he was perhaps more terse than he had to be, but nothing which comes close to requiring administrator intervention. On the other hand, you currently have an active ANI thread about your conduct, dealing with the issues I mentioned above, among others.
 * If you continue in the above, I imagine you will be blocked in short order. This is unfortunate, as you are clearly passionate about improving the Bangladesh article, which you won't be able to do if you're blocked. For this reason, you might want to consider withdrawing this report. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I just reported Solomon at WP:ANEW because while you may be right that their edit warring isn't major, they've definitely reverted at least 4 times today (and probably more) even though they've known since last October at the latest not to do that. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 20:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is starting to feel like hounding. I call for a boomerang on . As much as might be in the wrong, two ANI threads on them is a bit too much, especially from a user who has a thread on ANI about themselves.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 21:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support a boomerang into Imamul Ifaz. Accusing Solomon of sockpuppetry because people had the same opinion as him in one discussion was a cherry on top of this mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support block. Unless they get their way, Imamul Ifaz will not stop using ChatGPT to lash out at everyone and anyone who might disagree with them. That they're, you know, wrong on uniformly everything as relates to the Bangladesh lede means a block for disruption is the obvious call here. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 21:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Solomon The Magnifico and Imanul Ifaz were just pblocked from Bangladesh for two weeks.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 22:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, this has gone on long enough. I blocked the editor via a boomerang, and noted this in the log: Disruptive editing after ANI thread: harassment, disruption, edit warring, specious complaints, socking while accusing others of socking, unverified edits, etc. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Irregular block
Can someone fix the block of user:2600:1001:b130::/44? This is a busy IP range and this prevents users from editing while logged in. 142.54.64.236 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4
This IPv6 comes along and it's contribs are just at AfD? Pointing out stuff only a more advance wiki user would know. Isn't that fishy??? Govvy (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Govvy, for all we know this editor has been contributing to AfDs for a decade under various IPs. There's nothing wrong with that. Oh, next time, please notify the user; that's mandatory. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought it was someone who was socking!! I am not use to IPs turning up only at AfDs and disappearing. I always find that odd. Especially when an IP knows more about wiki than half the registered users. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Really. Govvy, you'd be surprised at how many regular and seasoned users choose to not have an account or not log in to one. You may not know about it because their IPs change, but that's not their fault. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

1989 date vandal from Texas


Someone using IPs from the southern tip of Texas has been inserting wrong dates in music articles. Many (but not all) of the wrong dates are the year 1989. The disruption started in July last year, as far as I can tell. Two months ago, the person was briefly blocked. Can we give this person a longer timeout? Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 6 months. -- Ponyo bons mots 22:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nothere editor
Per WP:NOTHERE. has now edited a couple articles where well-sourced statistics is being changed to their liking. They've been warned more than once on their talkpage but continued to be disruptive. Semsûrî (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only edit summary this person has ever used came when they removed accurate, sourced information from Darreh Shahr and explained it with a racist lie, "We don't have any kurd in this city." They also vandalized after a final warning. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 17:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine POV pusher on Del Bigtree
So I've been dealing with someone who seems to push an anti-vaccine POV. I've been giving them rope, because it's likely that they've been misinformed themselves, but I noticed, who imposed a pblock on them earlier, has likely went to sleep by the time I suggested that he indefs the user (as I can't give rope forever). I'm not sure what to do, but the POV pushing is obvious, and the user who's being reported has repeatedly used the talk page of the article as a soapbox. There's also been an AIV report about them lingering, but I feel like it fits this venue better, as it's not obvious vandalism.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 05:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say to wait a bit before doing something, considering it's only been 3 hours since their block from Del Bigtree, however they clearly aren't here to contribute productively. On their talk page, they have accused Drmies of being a program, asked for the "actual administrator of Wikipedia", and asked if Drmies and CityOfSilver were one person using different usernames. Their comments on Talk:Del Bigtree aren't promising either. Some length of block is probably needed. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Drmies is a program. They got everything else wrong. Lourdes  12:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn you ; I told you that in confidence. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not like you were programmed to feel. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * POV pushing against vaccination? Nope.  Not needed on an encyclopaedia.  Indeffed, given they have not seen the light since being partially blocked. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

112.200.9.54 and perpetuating hoaxes?
I'm not sure what's the story here, but this IP has seemingly added a fake radio station on Ultrasonic Broadcasting System, which is apparently a problem enough for a hidden note asking not to do so. Seems like Superastig may know something about this? I don't, but it seems like something that's not "obvious vandalism" enough for WP:AIV. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks for hitting me up regarding this issue. For a very long time, I've been encountering this kind of issue where various IP users add hoax/unconfirmed stations in articles of various radio networks/companies like the one you mentioned above. These are also the following targets of various IP users:
 * DCG Radio-TV Network
 * Global Satellite Technology Services
 * Eagle Broadcasting Corporation
 * Rizal Memorial Colleges Broadcasting Corporation
 * Sagay Broadcasting Corporation
 * Kaissar Broadcasting Network
 * Apollo Broadcast Investors
 * Rajah Broadcasting Network
 * I've reverted their edits several times, but they still keep on persisting. I suggest those following pages mentioned, including Ultrasonic Broadcasting System, to be semi-protected from IP users indefinitely, similar to Brigada Mass Media Corporation. That's the only way to solve this problem. ASTIG 😎🙃 01:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unarchived this from Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127 following the response above.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 01:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it's frustrating dealing with this stuff but before I did anything I would want more explanation regarding how it is known that the IP's additions are junk. I can't see any HTML comments in the wikitext at Ultrasonic Broadcasting System and the talk page is blank. What is the "hidden note" in the OP? I had a look at Apollo Broadcast Investors from the above list and the last IP edit there was in October 2022. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a hidden note at Ultrasonic Broadcasting System that says "PLEASE DO NOT ADD NON-EXISTING STATIONS! AVOID PLAGIARISM!".  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I missed the fact that the IP removed the comment and I must have been searching the IP's version. Now all that's needed is a brief explanation, preferably on article talk, of how it is known that the IP's edits are wrong. I'm not looking for absolute proof, just an outline. For example, is it merely unlikely and we correctly require the IP to produce a source to support their addition? Or is there a reason to believe it's made up? Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what makes it a hoax, hence why I pinged Superastig. I happened to notice the note and assumed it was, in fact, a likely hoax due to that note. Perhaps Astig knows how to tell?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 23:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Last time I ran into a Philippine radio station hoaxer (which are surprisingly common), Sammi Brie was able to clearly show why it was a hoax, and I blocked accordingly. Sammi, around? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 23:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin Short answer is that the NTC does maintain a list of radio stations (though people keep having to file FOIA requests to get them on a regular basis). That list is the definitive list of currently authorized stations. So if it's not on there, it's either defunct or provably nonexistent. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any way to know here whether this was a hoax or an honest error?  does get a few (non-RS) Google hits, although with a different frequency.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's definitely hoax. Google and FB yield no results about it. It's not even on the recent NTC listing. ASTIG 😎🙃 00:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the latest FM listing from NTC. AFAIK, the AM and TV listings are given separately. We use them as proof for the list of stations of every media company, whether every station has a designated call letter or is given a provisional authority (PA). Adding to what Sammi Brie said, if it's not in the listing, it's either defunct or probably nonexistent or unlicensed. If ever it's licensed, it may be reflected in the next NTC listing. ASTIG 😎🙃 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the best way to handle this is for someone who understands the topic to post on article talk with that link and a statement to the effect that anything not on that list and without a very reliable source is likely to be a hoax. Admins can then feel more relaxed about blocking whoever adds them. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Massive birth place changes through longer period by User:Neonknights
The user has made thousands of edits in various BIO articles to change their birth places in the past 2 years. I see no Wikipedia-wide consensus (rather disagreeing people) for this, no reference to sources or discussion, not even bothered to fill out edit summaries, all of which the user has been asked multiple times. Asking admins to further investigate this matter and while these edits are about everything this user does in Wikipedia, the necessity of a block. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The few I looked at were changing Germans POB from the modern geographic "Germany" to the historic political (Kingdom of Bavaria etc). I don't support these personally, but I don't think they are blockable offences. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think these changes are in line with MOS:GEO, though I could be wrong. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see how that is anything to do with it. The ones I saw weren't changing the place name, but the country/state location, like this. They aren't all Germans either. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, but those are the historically-accurate names for the polities in question. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEGALTHREATS by User:ScottishCavalier
Per User talk:ScottishCavalier, they have been removing a free version of the Anglican Province of America's seal and putting up the copyrighted design over a series of months; from their response, it would seem that they have also confessed to WP:SOCKPUPPETING; this seems to be a clear WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST for the sake of them publishing a copyrighted image, against the free alternative provided; they also lambasted the design by another Wikipedian as "generic." As Wikipedia cannot host full-sized images of copyrighted content, alongside clear standings of Creative Commons copyrighted SVG alternatives being published as permissible, legal threats have been made by them. And I quote the following: "The attorney for the Anglican Province of America has been promptly notified and is taking immediate action to prohibit the repeated removal and substitution of the official APA shield with an unacceptable generic version." - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User and IP blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that the province wishes to make their shield available for our use, which would involve releasing it under a free licence, but have gone about it in rather an inept way. Surely it is better to first discuss the possible release of the shield rather than go in all guns blazing for a block? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk about a series of unfortunate events... - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but if someone came up to me in person saying "do it or I'll sue your ass" I'd listen... why? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there almost certainly was a better way to resolve all this, but as soon as someone says they have an attorney taking "immediate action" (as dubious as that may be), for me the WP:NLT red line is crossed, but others may certainly feel differently. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the article ever be temporarily protected? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

User:MPN 1994 failing to grasp WP:V
User:MPN 1994 has been creating articles on various Maltese football leagues but rarely provides any sourcing. When they are drafted, they create a new version in mainspace with the same content (see first, second, ; first, ). They're also reverting any attempts to redirect their unsourced articles (1 2 3 4 5). I have no comment on whether the articles they're making are notable, but they're being disruptive through their constant reversions and lack of edit summaries. They've been warned (see 1 2 3) (and then told elsewhere to read the warnings), and it's at a point where I'm questioning their competence. They have been blocked in the past for similar issues (removing ongoing AfD tags from articles they create). I suggest a longer block. Anarchyte ( talk ) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them from article space for a month. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Question and - in light of this, in order to remove the unsourced material, would it be all right if I either restore the redirect?  I do not want to get accused of edit warring. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 18:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 03:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

help with link spam to copyvio references at worldradiohistory.com
Per WP:COPYVIO, Wikipedia does not allow links to copyvio material, and that includes when linked from a reference. In investigating such links, I've found an egregious pattern of aggressively linking to worldradiohistory.com. This site hosts PDF scans of broadcast and music industry magazines, like Billboard (magazine), Broadcasting & Cable, Broadcasting, and so on.

There were about 2000 such links in the encyclopedia. I've cleaned up a couple hundred links, most notably in WGN America and in Superstation. Through these edits, I've convinced myself that these links are deliberately placed with great frequency:


 * One cite web tag per page, rather than a range of pages in one tag
 * Use of links in external links for parameters like  in order to have more links
 * dense referencing patterns, suggesting superfluous references to again increase the number of links

so I've become suspicious that these are deliberately placed as link spam, maybe for SEO or ad revenue or something else.

Here are some diffs:


 * (still working ...)
 * (still working ...)
 * (still working ...)

What is the best way to fix these? Editing them out is quite tedious. Can the worldradiohistory.com website be blacklisted? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mikeblas, this is probably better handled at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Ask to maybe deprecate it there with the same info that you put here, and that should get you somewhere. <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"> 22:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it to Spam blacklist
 * — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

DeadlyRagDoll
This editor has been making personal attacks  and been generally uncivil. Now they're flooding school shooting articles with nonconstructive changes that they provide no reasoning for (see their recent contributions). –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours to stop the immediate disruption. Pondering if NOTHERE applies. Courcelles (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support a NOTHERE block. These, edit summaries clearly show this is not someone here to build an encyclopedia with others collaboratively.  // Timothy :: talk  22:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support indef block per NOTHERE. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Chronic tendentious editing by User:ජපස on 2007 Alderney UFO sighting
User:ජපස has carried out a series of unconstructive edits to the article 2007 Alderney UFO sighting, connected with its ongoing AfD. These edits have all involved the tagging or removal of cited material, in each case for tendentious reasons contrary to policy, guidelines and in some cases the established consensus on the Talk page. This seems to be a textbook case of a persistent user with a particular angle on an article (in this case, that it shouldn't exist) attempting to force their aims against consensus established locally and through site-wide guidance, norms and policy.


 * The situation seems to have begun with this edit on 13 May, where ජපස blanked the page (against WP:BLANK) and proposed it for deletion under WP:TNT. I came to the article on 15 May, and rewrote it from scratch, sticking to generally-regarded WP:HQRS such as the BBC, the New Yorker, The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
 * ජපස made this edit and this edit on 15 May, tag-bombing the article with misused tags: using to dispute (without sources) the factual accuracy of an eyewitness report, tagging a direct quotation from a source with , and using  while simultaneously arguing on the Talk page and AfD that the opinions sought could not be found in HQRS. User:Boynamedsue made a post on the Talk page setting out the errors made in applying these tags. I reverted the edits here, pointing out that the tone and handling of the quotation tagged as WP:PEACOCK was almost identical to that used as a good example in the associated guideline.
 * On 15 May, in a discussion on the Talk page, I made this comment that saying that facts stated in WP:HQRS are untrue requires another HQRS to say so (invoking, though not explicitly citing, WP:OR). ජපස responded to call that standard "paraphilic and bordering on the idolatrous".
 * This edit on 18 May removed a further quotation, from a WP:HQRS (The Times). I reverted that removal here, explaining that The quotation has considerable value in establishing the interest of the article to the reader, and including the judgement of HQRS on a person or event's significance in the lead follows well-established practice. ජපස then reverted that reversion without an edit summary.
 * This edit later on 18 May removed two quotations from well-established reliable sources (The Times and the Daily Telegraph), on the grounds that "no outside attestation to their importance is given". It is not required in any guideline or policy that an third-party source also quoted a HQRS's comment on a subject for that comment to be included.
 * This edit by ජපස on 18 May removed cited material from The Times, on the WP:OR and WP:BLP-violating assertion that The Times seemed to have not been thorough in its fact-checking. Not surprising since the article is written by a credulous UFO-believer. An explanation was promised on the Talk page, but never materialised. In a second edit shortly afterwards, ජපස removed a further quotation from the same source, on the grounds that it was "unremarkable". User:Boynamedsue pointed out on the talk page here that this justification had no grounds in policy or guidelines. I reverted both removals here, pointing out that a user's OR into a journalist does not replace WP:HQRS, and that the only objection raised to that journalist on the Talk page (about his Twitter feed) had been shown to be a case of mistaken identity.
 * On the 19th, ජපස reverted my reversion here. User:Boynamedsue restored the deleted material here, pointing out that it had been removed for no good reason, and pointed to the ongoing discussion of the quotation on the Talk page as to the credibility of the source and to the inclusion of the quotation. In both cases, there was and is no way of reading a consensus to remove into the discussion.
 * In this edit on 24 May, ජපස removed one of the same quotations from from the lead, with an edit summary arguing that the quotation needed to be mentioned in an additional secondary source to be included. This has no basis in any policy or guideline. I reverted that removal here, referring the user back to the Talk page discussion, which still showed no consensus to remove it.
 * In this edit, ජපස undid the reversion, dismissing the opposing (policy-based) views raised in Talk as "prejudice". I reverted that here with the summary that dismissing opposing views as "prejudice" is not a substitute for consensus. The editor removing cited material has the onus to demonstrate that the removal is in line with policy and an improvement to the article; there is presently an ongoing discussion and no consensus behind either of these suggestions.
 * In this edit, ජපස once again removed the quotation, along with much of the surrounding information, citing WP:SENSATION. This follows a lengthy discussion on the AfD page, in which it was established that WP:SENSATION advises against the use of low-quality journalism to establish facts or notability, and is not an appropriate way to dismiss statements of opinion or uncontroversial facts in high-quality publications. Both the list of perennial sources, Talk page discussion and the AfD make clear that there is community consensus behind the reliability of The Times.
 * There is also a broader pattern of less-than-collegial comments on the Talk page: see for instance here, here and here.

ජපස appears to be editing with the agenda of removing anything from the article which draws attention to the interest of the subject matter, or indeed which does not approach it from the perspective of "debunking" it. There is a clear pattern here of non-constructive edits, and no sign of this behaviour changing in light of discussion and explanations from multiple users that these actions are being taken unilaterally, against Wikipedia-wide norms and against local consensus. Charitably, I could call this over-enthusiastic application of WP:BRD, but ජපස is consistently failing to respect the R and the D phases of that cycle. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A pro-fringe editor annoyed at jps? Must be Thursday. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the article that says that it's an actual UFO (ie aliens) as much as an item reported as a UFO, as they exist in society. Secretlondon (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The tendentious editing looks to have been most vigorously carried out by User:UndercoverClassicist (and to some extent User:Boynamedsue), who doggedly edit-warred to include this sentence in the article lead: The sighting was mentioned in stories published by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The New Yorker and The Times, which described it as "one of the most impressive and perplexing testimonies to have found its way into MoD (Ministry of Defence) archives”, , , and . A glance at the Talk page will show other editors (myself among them) objecting to having the lead showcasing one writer's hyperbolic quote. Unfortunately UndercoverClassicist continued to edit war for their preferred version, even after WP:CONSENSUS was explained to them. Despite this unpleasantness, they seem to have the makings of a good editor, and with a bit less impulsive action and a bit more experience, might turn out to be an asset to the project.  - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, a bit more reading of pages like WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate an admin's eye on the talk page: I don't see that consensus has been established for the quotation's removal, within the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS. If they take the view that it has, I'd be happy to accept that. However, the reason for opening this issue is the behaviour of User:ජපස in editing and discussing, not the underlying disagreement as to the article's content. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You've been editing here 6 months. It makes sense that you're not familiar with stuff like WP:ONUS and WP:BOOMERANG. But please, familiarize yourself now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a 19kb UFO sighting article wherein the only secondary content (derived from discussion of the event from people other than the witnesses) is:
 * That is to say, >75% of the article is derived directly from primary descriptions from the witnesses ("[Newspaper] reported Bowyer said..." does not make a statement secondary), with the remaining material sourced to a "credulous New Yorker article" said to amplify the voices of two "UFO lobbyists", a Times "investigation", a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph, a few sentences in a BBC piece, a report in a hyperlocal newspaper by an amateur astronomer, and two books that don't mention Alderney. We get just ~3 sentences of secondary analysis of the event, all from the local newspaper, to contextualize ~40 sentences of UFO witness testimony. This is not how FRINGE topics should be handled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is to say, >75% of the article is derived directly from primary descriptions from the witnesses ("[Newspaper] reported Bowyer said..." does not make a statement secondary), with the remaining material sourced to a "credulous New Yorker article" said to amplify the voices of two "UFO lobbyists", a Times "investigation", a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph, a few sentences in a BBC piece, a report in a hyperlocal newspaper by an amateur astronomer, and two books that don't mention Alderney. We get just ~3 sentences of secondary analysis of the event, all from the local newspaper, to contextualize ~40 sentences of UFO witness testimony. This is not how FRINGE topics should be handled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is to say, >75% of the article is derived directly from primary descriptions from the witnesses ("[Newspaper] reported Bowyer said..." does not make a statement secondary), with the remaining material sourced to a "credulous New Yorker article" said to amplify the voices of two "UFO lobbyists", a Times "investigation", a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph, a few sentences in a BBC piece, a report in a hyperlocal newspaper by an amateur astronomer, and two books that don't mention Alderney. We get just ~3 sentences of secondary analysis of the event, all from the local newspaper, to contextualize ~40 sentences of UFO witness testimony. This is not how FRINGE topics should be handled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is to say, >75% of the article is derived directly from primary descriptions from the witnesses ("[Newspaper] reported Bowyer said..." does not make a statement secondary), with the remaining material sourced to a "credulous New Yorker article" said to amplify the voices of two "UFO lobbyists", a Times "investigation", a passing mention in the Daily Telegraph, a few sentences in a BBC piece, a report in a hyperlocal newspaper by an amateur astronomer, and two books that don't mention Alderney. We get just ~3 sentences of secondary analysis of the event, all from the local newspaper, to contextualize ~40 sentences of UFO witness testimony. This is not how FRINGE topics should be handled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. This is a lot of text.

Look, UFO sightings are a fairly ridiculous topic, I hope we can all agree. Most of them are so poorly attested to as to make it nearly impossible to write a standalone article on them and adhere to WP:5P. But for some reason when the "papers" report someone seeing a UFO, there always seems to be a contingent of Wikipedians enthused to write an inordinately detailed article on each instance relying on obviously compromised "slow news day" accounts written in normally respectable periodicals.

Not to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, rather, doesn't exist), but we have comparatively few articles on famous Marian apparitions -- only the ones that are notable enough to have reliable sourcing (and that's a challenge enough -- see Our Lady of Fatima fights). We have almost no standalone articles on ghost sightings. Rightly so. What is it about UFOs inspires such editorial credulity? No, really, I wish I knew what it was.

jps (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's been some pretty serious WP:CIR issues a lack of knowledge regarding the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia from jps on this page.


 * The user tagged direct quotations of individuals with "contradictory" and "peacock" tags, which is specifically not their use. edit-also used a "dubious" tag inside an indirect quotation


 * They committed a BLP violation, accusing the Foreign Affairs editor of the Times Newspaper of being a "credulous UFO believer". I pointed out to them that this was the case, but they have not amended their post.


 * Their understanding of our policy on reliable sources seems shaky, they seem to be claiming that any source mentioning lights in the sky can not be valid unless it is a debunking from a sceptic perspective.


 * I would also add their behaviour at the deletion discussion on this article and a recent ANI thread where they were advised by several users that they were required to leave neutral messages when posting discussions to FTN noticeboard in order to avoid breaking WP:CANVASS. They simply argued that the rule was wrong,.

To me this indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in articles related to the "paranormal" understood broadly. I think they need to change their editing style, as it is becoming detrimental to the project in this area. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would also add the WP:NPA post they made on my talkpage, which uses the word "snivelling" and implies I am a conspiracy theorist. I understand the user was upset, as I had put a warning on their page relating to canvassing which was partially incorrect, but taken with the other stuff, I think it also shows WP:BATTLEGROUND Boynamedsue (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of being incompetent, as you did above with the reference to CIR, is also a personal attack. I have a bit of sympathy for jps here, as it is a little ludicrous that we have a long and detailed article about an incident which in the end is "some people saw an atmospheric anomaly".  Also, the bit about credulous reporters does stand up a little if you search Matthew Campbell's pieces for the times (i.e. ) Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Half of my editing is resolving and removing tags, the use they made of tags was either incompetent or malicious. It should be understood that the WP:CIR relates only to that, as assuming malice would violate WP:AFG. I personally think misuse of tags should carry the death penalty, but I would settle for the user re-reading the policies in this case. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are going down the WP:CIR claims are WP:NPA violations, Jfs made the following personal attack on this page .We absolutely know what happened at Tunguska. Bizarre that you would claim otherwise (and concerning since competence is required). This was due to the poster being unaware of the current majority scientific position regarding the Tunguska event, rather than any deficiency in their editing. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * btw, I have now struck the WP:CIR claim. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also say that accusations against living persons need to do more than "stand up a little" based on our interpretations of the headlines subeditors put on their articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:HEADLINE reminds us that the headlines should not be used as a guide to the article's body text. I should be able to access that article this evening, but it certainly seems to be written as tongue-in-cheek. Likewise, a Wikipedia editor's opinion isn't enough (per WP:BLP) to justify a negative comment about them (particularly one with potential implications for their professional credibility): any contentious judgement on a living person needs to be cited or removed: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies in AfD and on this page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Page block:, as LuckyLouie implies above, don't take people to ANI unless you want your own conduct examined, because it will happen. I have page-blocked you from the AFD, which you have been seriosly bludgeoneing. I don't see how there can be anything left for you to say there that you haven't already said, often repeatedly. When you have made 25 posts to an AFD, many of them pretty long, it's past time to allow people to comment without a comeback from you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC).


 * I would suggest adding User:Boynamedsue as well, both for his conduct on the talk page and here at ANI. 2601:18F:107F:E2A0:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Request close (ec) What the OP describes here is not an urgent, chronic, intractable behavioral problem, but rather good faith attempts by an experienced editor in good standing (now a couple of such editors) to prevent, in Wikipedia's voice, the promotion of sensational, pro-fringe content. This complaint seems merely an attempt to silence an "opponent" in a content dispute. The OP has already been appropriately sanctioned (see above) for tendentious editing related to the page/topic. Before they receive additional sanctions I request that this discussion be closed, with a request that going forward the OP consider WP:COAL and the old basketball strategy: play the ball, not the man. FWIW, I asked the OP on their Talk page to withdraw this spurious complaint. That request was met with silence. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, precisely because they are an experienced editor. They should know better than to make personal attacks, BLP violations and to tag-bomb articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As an aside, there's an AFD discussion about this very article that could use to be closed; it's been open almost 2 weeks, and there's plenty of comments from plenty of people that leaving it open any longer is just providing yet another locus for this silly dispute to take place in. I'd close, but I've also voted, so cannot.  Kthxbye.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see this revenge post by a relative newbie closed with a little word to them. - Roxy the dog 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'd perhaps like to see some recognition from jps that they should avoid BLP violations, tagbombing, personal attacks and non-neutral notifications at project noticeboards if this is to be closed without sanction. Otherwise this behaviour is likely to recur. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should we ask for you to be topic banned from UFOs? That would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be unlikely to affect my editing very much as I have no interest in UFOs whatsoever and IIRC my only main space edits ever on the topic were fixing your tagbombing. I honestly think you should ask yourself if you could have handled these discussions in a less confrontational manner.
 * Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter, if the rest of the community see your behaviour differently to me then a close would be warranted.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. Then we can go our separate ways. jps (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise, if the administrators feel that everything in the report meets the site's norms and rules (especially WP:CIVIL), and that no action should be taken, I'd be completely happy with an explanation from one of them of how that's so, or what the preferred system for handling this situation would have been. The aim of making this report was to raise and hopefully fix what I saw as a problem, not to see that fixed in any particular way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

NeoBatfreak doing a series of micro-editing in various articles
I, along with other users, have been witnessed to a series of micro-editing in various articles done by NeoBatfreak. Other users who also witness this include Doniago, AJFU and InfiniteNexus, maybe more. In NeoBatfreak's talk page, you'll find that there are sections that list a bunch of orphaned image links and such on it. Below is the the userlinks of NeoBatfreak and pagelinks of article he had micro-edited.

BattleshipMan (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What's the issue? A series of small constructive edits?  What do you think needs admin attention here? Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Link to discussion at Project Film on NeoBatfreak's editing pattern, which they participated in. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide us with diffs of problematic behaviour. So they spread their edits out over multiple edits instead of doing it all at once, big deal. It's easy to select multiple edits and see them in one go so it's not preventing or hiding anything. That's not inherently disruptive or problematic. It would be nice if they left edit summaries though. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's how I came across the project discussion, trying to figure out why this was brought here. But I can't see anything other than an editing pattern that sometimes irritates other editors. I've unwatched articles at times because someone else is doing a huge number of tiny edits, then rewatch it after they're done, so I get that it can be annoying but it isn't wrong. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I invited the other users I mentioned so they can discuss this. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to make a case (as suggested in the Wikiproject discussion) of OR? Make it, that's at least reasonable to bring to ANI.  But this filing is... not. Courcelles (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with someone making lots of small edits if that's their choice to make (unless they're trying to game something which the user in question clearly isn't.) If another user is unaware of how to select multiple edits for viewing in one go in the history browser, we can help show you how to do so, but otherwise it's not an issue. (I will note that the OP here also makes some small edits from time to time without an edit summary, though not to the same extent.) <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that NeoBatfreak has been continuously making micro-editing and constantly changing wording on those pages, causing massive irritating and annoyance to many editors and also on his page, there's a long list of sections of orphaned images and such on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again there is nothing wrong with them making lots of micro-edits, that's what we're trying to tell you. You choosing to get annoyed with it we can't help you with. I see no reason for it to be irritating and annoying and it causes zero operational or history reading issues. The absolute only issue it causes is you can't hit the diff button on your watchlist, you need to go to the page history. Hardly an issue. If you wish to talk about the orphaned images (not putting the rationales on them may be worth a discussion) then please state the complaint about that. (Oh and if you notice, I tend to make my comments in a serious of micro edits rather than one large edit.) <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Chiming in a little reluctantly here...I'm really not interested in getting into a debate about this, especially given the direction in which the wind clearly seems to be blowing.
 * I don't care about a series of small edits in moderation, but, as an example, the edits to 2012 were dozens of edits over a span of days. Maybe this is a Me Problem, but I was afraid to "butt in" because I couldn't tell when Neo intended to be done making their changes, and given the lack of edit summaries, it was also challenging to determine their motivations. Given that all of these edits were to the Plot section of the article, it's unclear to me why Neo couldn't have consolidated them, if not into a single edit, then at least into a smaller number of edits. When I left them what I thought was a pretty gently-worded note at their Talk page asking them to WP:SLOWDOWN, they didn't acknowledge it..
 * If Neo wants to keep micro-editing in the style they've been exhibiting, then I acknowledge that the consensus is that that's a non-issue, but it would be helpful if they could at least be encouraged to provide edit summaries so their goal is less opaque to their fellow editors. It does look as though since 2012 their micro-editing hasn't been quite as plentiful (I probably wouldn't have issues with what I'm seeing at a glance), but they continue to neglect to leave summaries. DonIago (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, I just edited things whether it seems relevant or having some grammatical errors such as 2012 film when I started, which was what caused the microedits. you can bet I will stop later due to me being busy with job interviews anyway. NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's my 2 cents: Do their edits introduce errors, problems, mistakes, or other issues in the reader-facing text of articles? If the answer is "yes" please show us those diffs.  If the answer is "No, but..." you can delete the "but" from that response, and every word that follows it.  I'm not interested in stopping a person from doing good work merely because the manner that they do their good work is mildly annoying to someone.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In regards to making a numerous amount of small edits in a given span of time, I'm unaware of any existing policy that forbids users from doing so. It seems NeoBatfreak is desisting from this behaviour in the meantime if what's being said in the other thread is true. : If this does happen in the future, perhaps any editors who take issue can leave a message on NeoBatfreak's user talk page to ask them to use in use if they're planning on going on an editing spree on a page? NeoBatfreak isn't obliged to use the template, but they shouldn't be shocked if they start running into edit conflicts with other users contributing at the same time. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tenryuu, is an excellent suggestion!  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I had intended to say something to that effect in my post but it slipped my mind. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing I would recommend out of this is that NeoBatFreak starts using edit summaries, or at least massively increases their usage of them. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 21:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be a help, at least to me. DonIago (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The insinuation that making lots of little edits is bad and NeoBatfreak should consolidate them or face admin punishment really ticks me off. I'm neurodivergent and across my 18 years here my editing pattern has been to make multiple small edits that add up to major improvements to articles. That's simply how my brain works and how I prefer editing Wikipedia. Other editors consolidate their edits into a few major revisions and guess what, that also works and is likely how they prefer to edit. There is no wrong way to edit Wikipedia as long as you follow guidelines and policies and work to improve our articles. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And frankly, I am upset of people making accusations of me causing problems when I was just trying to edit in peace.  NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) I sampled some of NeoBatfreak's edits, and they all struck me as perfectly good WP:WIKIGNOMEing. I might have done a few of them differently or not at all, but that's nothing more than personal taste. Small edits enhance the encyclopaedia, and should be encouraged and applauded not complained about. As a practical matter, it is often much easier, and clearer, to make such improvements as-found rather than all in one go.
 * (1) You might want to add WikiGnome topicon to your user page. (2) I strongly recommend that you use WP:EDITSUMMARIES. They help other editors understand what you've done. They often need to be only one or two words. My browser prompts me to use one of my stock ones after I've typed a letter or two. Narky Blert (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been pinged here. I don't recall giving NeoBatFreak the warning you mentioned at User talk:Doniago, could you please post a link here? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know what. There's no point of continuing this as it just no point of taking further action on this. NeoBatfreak should just make he follows Narky Blert's suggestions and others who suggest the similar things. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See, all the administrators said that I didn't do anything wrong, so leave me alone unless there is an relevant issue. NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that being brought up at ANE can be stressful, but I find it concerning that you're coming off entirely as an unjustly accused victim while not even acknowledging the suggestions editors are making that might help you (and everyone else) going forward. I don't expect you to thank anyone, but it would help me and possibly others if you at least indicated that you'd seen the suggestions and might consider adapting your editing style going forward. Right now the sense I'm getting from your messages is entirely, "I did nothing wrong and I have no intentions of changing anything." DonIago (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They can come off as an unjustly accused victim because they are an unjustly accused victim. It would be nice if they started using edit summaries more, but it's not compulsory. And anything else is a suggestion and again not compulsory. No one is saying NeoBatFreak needs to do anything here. They have done nothing wrong by this complaint. They do not have to change anything. You seem to be convinced they actually have done something wrong that absolutely needs to be apologised for and corrected, but that's not the case. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to another admin to close this incident but it is obviously resolved, with NeoBatfreak doing nothing wrong but being urged to use edit summaries in the future. That said, I believe as part of the closing BattleshipMan should be warned not to again raise petty complaints on ANI over valid work done by other editors.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks, it just all this makes me feel like be being harrased  by bullies in high school again. NeoBatfreak (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it really an entirely petty complaint when some of the participants in this conversation have acknowledged that while Neo hasn't done anything wrong per se, there are things they could do to lower the amount of concern that other editors might have concerning their editing patterns? Does Battleship have any sort of history of this behavior, and if not, why are you keen to warn them for having raised something they presumably in good-faith felt was a potential concern? DonIago (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * DonIago: As you said, NeoBatfreak hasn't done anything wrong and people saying Neo should use edit summaries is something that could have been suggested without ANI or administrator involvement. As for BattleshipMan, I went through their edit history and they have a history of using the administrator noticeboard and ANI in content and other minor disputes with fellow editors. For example, see this ANI post (resolution stating "Content dispute, no admin action needed") and this noticeboard post (resolution stating "Not currently an AN issue). And if you go through BattleshipMan's edit history you will see more instances of this. Using the noticeboard and ANI for disputes that don't rise to this level is intimidating for other editors who get pulled in, as was expressed by NeoBatfreak. BattleshipMan needs to stop doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Red9875
Can an admin please block Red9875? It's a sock. Please see User:Callmemirela/Hedgehog socks for all evidence. This account has been nothing but disruptive and blanking pages. – Callme <b style="color:#9cadad;">mirela</b> &#127809; 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , I'm wondering whether User:Callmemirela/Hedgehog socks is really appropriate for userspace. That sort of investigation is best done at WP:SPI, where there are people with the experience and the tools to properly deal with sockpuppetry, and in my opinion should probably be confined to that venue. – bradv  03:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Harry Sibelius needs TPA revoked
Indeffed editor Harry Sibelius is using their talk page for repetitious rants arguing about their block, displaying in these outbursts exactly the reasons for which they were blocked: TE, IDHT, etc. I believe their TPA should be revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, not yet. Revoking TPA is quite a big deal, especially for an indeffed user. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC).
 * OK, I appreciate your view, but please keep an eye on the page. Beyond My Ken (talk)


 * I'm with Bish on this. On my watchlist. Doug Weller  talk 11:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good. I have faith in you both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Michael Madsen
Persistent addition of unsourced BLP material by IP editor(s) since March 25 on article Michael Madsen regarding an alleged daughter. As wording in similar in all edits, probably same person. Diffs here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rift (talk • contribs) 05:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually goes back farther than that, to 2600:1:92D3:775E::/64 and (stale, not worth blocking) in 2018. I've blocked 2601:248:C480:6F80::/64 from the article for 3 months. The other recent IP hasn't edited in a week and has a different geolocation, so holding off for now.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected the article. Also I don't understand why it mentions so many names of the subject's children altogether. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I've removed the information about the suicide of one, non-notable, child (sourced to The Sun, which deals in such things). How did that show any regard for the subject's privacy? Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC).

Imamul Ifaz trying to evade scrutiny and bypass discussion by superficially emulating other editors + uses ChatGPT
Today, Imamul Ifaz posted a uw-unsourced1 warning on my talk page. had given him this same warning, with the same custom line (Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) prior to that. This shows that the editor copied it from his talk page onto mine. He did this in reply to a request I made in an edit summary that he first discuss his desired changes, and explain what the problem with the sources is, at Talk:Sheikh Hasina (an article which some will be familiar with). There, where he could have provided a meaningful reply to my question, he copy-pasted another message that he had received on his talk page (diff), from. The reply thus produced makes zero sense in context, which should be plain for everyone to see when looking at the history of Sheikh Hasina. Of course, he reverted back to his preferred version using a summary of "Last good version" which he picked up from his previous reverter (diff), which is more evidence of emulating other editors to cover for non-constructive edits. This means that the editor refuses to engage in collaborative editing, and is edit warring.

Further, such misuse of warnings means that the editor is not learning from the warnings. Perhaps he thinks that warnings are rocks that editors throw at each other: duck, pick up from the ground and hurl back. Perhaps, due to English proficiency limitations, writing authentic replies may be too burdensome, so he's parroting back what he's told to hide that fact. Probably, he understands that he has been disingenuous. Ultimately it doesn't seem that the editor is WP:HERE to a necessary degree, and shows little potential of improving his editing.

BTW, this is the edit that he started out with at Sheikh Hasina, with the following summary: expanded the intro of the political person for brief summery. WARNING!! Don't vandalize or remove anything without adequete reasoning. All the informations provided where written from massive research and trusted sources only. Thank you. Let me know in the talk page if anything needed. This was one of his sources: Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina deserves Nobel Peace Prize. When his positive-POV changes were reverted he pivoted to removing negative information.—Alalch E. 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, at FC Barcelona
 * adds content
 * is reverted once
 * top tags the FA-class article with "citations needed" (not necessarily a problem in itself, but it is a bizarre turn), while recycling the same David Gerrard's custom addition to a warning template, mentioned above (... Also I noticed that a user added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) . . . yet, there was no edit warring

I think this more clearly points to WP:CIR now.—Alalch E. 18:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Imamul Ifaz is now using ChatGPT. He made one revert, and when he complained about being reverted back, he replied with ... I agree that the intro could be shorter, and I've made some changes to make it more concise. It is for giving the readers basic understanding about the article. ... But he did not make anything more concise, he just made one revert that restored the lead to a less-concise form. LLM detectors detect that his message was machine-generated ... this is obvious, under the circumstances (As for the paramilitary forces, I thought it was important to mention them because they play a significant role in Bangladesh. They're responsible for a variety of tasks, including border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. I believe that understanding the role of the paramilitary forces is essential to understanding Bangladesh as a country.)—Alalch E. 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And now he is reporting another editor below for the mess at Bangladesh. Wow. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He saw me start an ANI about him, and is now emulating this by starting an ANI about someone else. But he doesn't understand what it's for, just as he doesn't understand what the warnings he had used are for, or how to generate replies using ChatGPT that are relevant for the conversation.—Alalch E. 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He assured me he does not use an LLM, said it was offensive, then accused me of using an LLM. He said that it could offend people and did it in the same breath. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to collaborate with this editor if he should keep making comments like @Alalch E. is not the representative of Bangladesh. I will not be convinced by his particular argument as he has been accused of being biased before. —Alalch E. 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If anyone is still on the fence, I'd say this diff is pretty incriminating. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * is now partially blocked for two weeks to prevent further participation in an edit war at the article about Bangladesh. This was in response to a report at WP:ANEW and done without reading this ANI thread here. I wouldn't object to anyone converting it to a sitewide block of any duration if that seems more fitting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Drmies upgraded the block to a sitewide block (also two weeks) and CU-blocked .—Alalch E. 23:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Pindrice Editing against Wikipedia standards
There is currently no assumption of good faith, a personal attack, an intentional failure to cite a source for the inclusion of disputed information through speculation and original research, and the engagement in an edit war.

These edits show that the user is not behaving in a manner conducive to constructive editing or collaborative editing on wikipeida:
 * - calling a legitimate edit after calling for a citation 'vandalism'
 * speculation and original research

This needs to be stopped as this goes against the editing principles of Wikipedia. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It was vandalism though. Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it was not as shown by a subsequent edit by another user.
 * Just because something has been reduced to a number which some would without knowing the subject matter can be assumed to be vandalism does not make something vandalism. A 0.000 Club Coefficient is a legitimate coefficient for a club NEVER having earned points towards a coefficient.
 * Subsequent edit:
 * 
 * please apologise and strike your claim.
 * 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I agree it was probably not a deliberate attempt to degrade the quality of Wikipedia, aka vandalism. However what I see is that the claim was added earlier by another user, and that Pindrice tried to explain to you in an edit summary where the number is coming from, however, your only reaction was to revert once again and then to bring the matter here without trying to discuss with Pindrice and not even notifying them of this thread . I am ok with accepting this is an editing dispute, but your behavior in this dispute is in any case not better than Pindrice's. Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you but it amazing how you couldn't seem to bring yourself to say you were sorry for making the accusation. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the user was clearly notified, please retract that part of your above claims. You seem to be good at making claims which are not factually sound:
 * 
 * 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I have striken out this part of the comment. I also apologize in accusing you in vandalism. I however still maintain the report is not actionable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above actions and I accept your apology. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that Talk:2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League has nothing about this. Why don't you two just discuss the matter there without any accusations? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that you're disscussing my case here without even has the audacity to come to talk to me ! I explained it twice, on different of you IP adresses, I gave you soures, I gave you examples, I explained how it works because it seems clear that you are not used to it. And you come here to cry because I reverted your edits that are clearly vandalism even I explained it twice/thrice ! Pathetic ! Pindrice (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933
This user is vandalizing the page 2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League. As you can read in the section just above this one : I explained to him/her/them how the UEFA coeffcients worked with sources and examples and after that the user came here to complain that I have reverted him/her/them/it. I answered his/her messages on this page + on the talk page of the [[2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League and I discovered much later that he/she/it was talking behingd my back here. So as I am as childish as him/her, I would like the administrators to block/prevent this user from making any further edits ! Thanks in advance ! Pindrice (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , do not ever refer to another human being as "it". That is dehumanizing language and simply not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * English is not my mother tongue, I thought it was commonly use for the people who don't use her or him. There was no intention to harm. Best regards. Pindrice (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * English has singular they for that purpose. Also,, good faith edits are not vandalism even if in error. Vandalism is a deliberate and malicious attempt to damage the encyclopedia. False accusations of vandalism can be considered personal attacks, so please desist. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will desist when the mentionned user will stop to edit non sense on the page and withdraw the section above. This is unreal, I took time to explain to him why he/she/they were wrong with sources and references and I am the one who is the buy guy ? And you're not telling him/her/them anything ? Pindrice (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The other user has been advised that bringing this case here was inappropriate. Your best option here is not to freak out. Might I suggest to both of you that, if you can't agree on content, and only two of you are disagreeing, then you could ask for a third opinion . This advice works equally well for the other user. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Two other users agreed with me on this talk page Talk:2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League. If the unknown user (with multiple IPs) revert again, what will happen ? Pindrice (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The user Pindicre has been continuing as they have here on the talk page after being warned not to behave in the manner that they are.
 * Special:MobileDiff/1157598965
 * 2A02:C7E:3910:3500:396B:578C:7482:9974 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you ? Seriously ? Pindrice (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For a start, both of you need to be civil and stop edit warring. I would strongly recommend you stop fighting here and get a third opinion. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole dispute, as well as any future confusion, could be prevented by adding a reference or an explanatory note (efn) to the effect that UEFA assigns country-based rating to teams that had not participated in international competitions before, preferably accompanied with a link to the appropriate decision on their website. That's what references are for – to allow readers to verify the information. You can't expect readers to dig through talk page archives to find the explanation. No such user (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause disruption at GAN
User:ErnestKrause started a review at Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1 on May 10. Rather than reviewing the article, ErnestKrause objected to the fact that each individual Federalist paper has its own article, and then complained about the main Federalist Papers article. ErnestKrause then proceeded to make this absurd comment objecting to the nominator changing the assessment for the article from start to B after massively improving it, inventing fake policy that says this is strictly forbidden, saying I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.

In a clearly retaliatory act for the nominator refusing to bow to his spurious demands unrelated to Federalist No. 2, ErnestKrause immediately quickfailed Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1 with a copy-paste message, full of absurdities. According to ErnestKrause, two articles over 1,000 words long and plentiful citations are still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. Both quickfails concluded with this statement, which I don't even need to explain the issues with: When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed.

When challenged at WT:GAN, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text  which fail to acknowledge the massive issues with their reviews. In the first of those two diffs, they claim talk page comments made twenty years ago justify their actions, and also claim they are acting with the support of User:Z1720, who promptly completely refuted this and exposed it as a complete lie. User:Mr rnddude pointed out that ErnestKrause has recently engaged in similar disruptive behavior elsewhere on the project. Sanctions are clearly needed to prevent further disruption to the project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Earlier today left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. I've previously stated that I did not know how to restore the internal GAN script queues for GANs, and Ajpolino was able to restore them with about a half dozen edits from his much higher experience level than my own at Wikipedia. I'm accepting Ajpolino's statement about the importance of preserving consensus on the Gan Talk page regardless of the number of books that I've read about the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm accepting Ajpolino's comments and edits for assuming good faith and restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting Ajpolino's comments (and rightfully sharp rebuke of ErnestKrause's activity wrt these GANs) came over an hour after I opened this thread. Your wording here implies, whether or not that was your intent, that I made this post after Ajpolino's comments, when the reverse is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And what about your misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about Ernest's claim that The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves.
 * It's true that any editor who has not contributed significantly to an article is welcome to review it for GA (see, e.g., Good article nominations/Instructions), but every assessment rating below GA is open to anyone per the guideline at Content assessment. I and others have spent years reassuring editors that they really are trusted to rate all the way from Stub-class to B-class all by themselves, and it's really disheartening to have someone actively spreading misinformation and then basically punishing an editor who did the right thing.  So just to make sure this is clear:  Thebiguglyalien, you are allowed to assess any article you want, up through and including B-class, you are encouraged to assess articles that you have improved, and if you ever run into a dispute about this again, then the official guideline on Content assessment says it's okay for you to assess articles that you improve, and if that's not sufficient proof, then there's usually someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council who will be willing to intervene (or leave a note on my own talk page, and I will).  This kind of making up fake rules really has to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause disruptive at WT:GAN and elsewhere
is the eponymous subject of WT:GAN, having been persistently disruptive in the GA process in recent days. Their first actions were to fail a series of reviews on the Federalist Papers (Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1, Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) with faulty, bad faith-riddled logic that baffled not only the nominator,, but the four other editors (myself, , , and ) who initially replied.

ErnestKrause posted a long response to that section, arguing that he had acted with the agreement and consent of two other editors, and. The "agreement" from Z1720 consisted of absolutely nothing at all, a fact which Z1720 pointed out in this lengthy and precise response—every single mention of Z1720 in ErnestKrause's response was in fact either some sort of misrepresentation or an outright fabrication. The "agreement" from Cecropia consists solely of (and no, I am not joking) an example table outlined by that user on 10 Jun 2004. Shortly afterwards, posted a comment explaining how ErnestKrause has done this before at this discussion.

In both of his responses in the above-linked section, ErnestKrause has declined to address any of the issues other editors have brought up—or indeed reply at all on his talk page, in a classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Instead, he has persisted in accusing others of bad faith (for example: "The difficulty remains that BigAlien has fully refused to discuss this issue", "I'm conscious of the fact that there of six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances", etc.) and showing absolutely no understanding of basic WP:CONSENSUS. I was reluctant to come here, but the constant stonewalling and disruptiveness has forced my hand. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Based on the above evidence, I would be in favour of a topic ban from the GA process and warnings for sealioning and assumptions of bad faith. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
 I had originally replied to Trainsandotherthings' report, then AirshipJungleman29 made their separate report, demoted it to h3, and so, as my reply pertains equally to both, and as discussion should develop in a single thread, I have created the h3 'Discussion' and moved my comment under both reports—Alalch E. 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ErnestKrause wants the Federalist Papers content to be organized in a certain way, i.e. for certain articles to be merged (for example, look at Federalist No. 5 in relation to Federalist No. 4) and this conflicts with his role as a GAN reviewer. ErnestKrause should have recongized this internal conflict and taken reasonable steps to avoid a non-constructive resolution of said internal conflict. Such as discussing. Maybe seeking advice. Maybe starting a merger discussion. ErnestKrause shouldn't be trusted to do more such reviews in the foreseeable future; at some point he should be able to demonstrate that he understands that these sorts of quickfails are the worst of several possible outcomes. One way to address the perceived problem could have beeen to accept the review, hypothetically pass, and then propose a merger. No big deal really. Surrounding conduct like the ridiculous wikilawyering about upgrading to B-class was bad. Therefore: ban ErnestKrause from reviewing GANs.—Alalch E. 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While the evidence is bad, I am holding out for a bit in case ErnestKrause responds. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I would at the very least recommend G6 deletion of the reviews of No. 3 and No. 4 and renomination of them and No. 2 to fix the mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note I've restored the three GANs in question to the GAN queue at their original positions, collapsed/archived the EK reviews, and pulled them off the talk pages. You can still see them at the GA subpages 1, 2, 3 (or rather 2, 3, 4). Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had hoped it wouldn't come to this: ErnestKrause is clearly a highly competent editor who has successfully nominated two articles for Featured Article and several more for Good Article status, and I was hopeful that multiple experienced editors explaining their concerns with his actions would prompt some self-reflection. His most recent response does not suggest that. Indeed his suggestion that he is in opposition to six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances strikes me as an agressively bad-faith reading of the discussion. I hope that EK will take seriously the objections that have been made about his conduct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment you highlight really was the single biggest thing that pushed me to start a thread here. I am not carrying water for anyone, and the suggestion that this is some sort of partisan act in opposing obvious misconduct and ignorance of the GAN process really shows continuing poor judgement and inability to accept ever being wrong. These are traits that are antithetical to both GAN and a collaborative project in general. You can disagree with someone without accusing them of conspiracy or bad faith, without any evidence. I've had precisely zero interactions with ErnestKrause before this as far as I can remember. I'd be objecting if anyone made this series of edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note that if an admin decides this case is closed, I do think it would best if EK provides a response to the charges of misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, which they have declined to respond to on multiple occasions by this point. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As no such response seems to be forthcoming, mark me down as supporting a topic ban from GAN and a formal warning re sealioning and ABF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose a GAN ban, given his previous good work and lack of serious problems in that area. Also, it's possible that some of his inaccurate statements, e.g. claiming that Z1720 agreed with him on the Federalist issue, are caused by honest misunderstandings. I'm happy to assume good faith in this case. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you think it's fine that he tried to invent fake policy and has yet to admit doing so was wrong? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Invention would suggest a deliberate act... he may simply have wrongly assumed that the prohibition against an editor elevating their own work to GA status also applied to B-class. He hasn't explained his reasoning so far. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, isn't it? He refuses to explain what he was thinking or made any assurances it won't happen in the future, instead disappearing. I did not support a topic ban until 3 days had passed with EK refusing to engage further here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a simple "Whoops, my bad" could have gone a long way; perhaps still could, although I think by now more might be needed. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I really can't follow, although I understand and to some degree sympathize with their position. Ernest Krause has a good track record, up to this point. His mishandled this situation, badly, and then disappeared without admitting fault (or retracting various accusations) when everyone disagreed with him. It's okay to be wrong, and it ought to be okay to admit when you've made a mistake. Anyone who holds that admission against you isn't thinking of the project's best interests. I won't oppose a topic ban from the Good Article process, but I think it's a little strong. I do think Ernest Krause ought to receive the equivalent of a yellow card: you made a mistake, you're on notice that you handled this poorly, and if this comes up again something will actually be done about it (topic ban or what have you). Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this on all points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If a warning will achieve consensus, I'll support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. I agree Ernest Krause has been uncooperative since the matter was brought up, but would like him to have a chance to show through his actions that he gets it. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Conflict/pattern of behaviour/defamation
Dear Wikipedia

I have been making small but hopefully valuable edits since I started this year and my reason for doing these edits is that it keeps me busy and helps me feel connected due to my disability which is fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

I have come across something very interesting which I hope you will also find useful.

With reference to Adam Leitman Bailey - []

I recently removed part of an article relating to a suspension which ended in 2019, I then received a message from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orangemike stating that my edits constituted vandalism and that they have been reverted. On the same day I noticed that another user left the following comment:

04:00, 29 April 2023‎ Iloveapphysics talk contribs‎ 14,813 bytes +725‎  Undid revision 1149354607 by Bijou1995 (talk) Why does this keep getting removed? Is this another sockpuppet? undothank Tag: Undo

Normally I don’t mind being reprimanded for my edits if they are wrong but I don’t feel on this occasion that it was or rather ‘the reversion with no communication’ didn’t sit right with me. I normally thank people for their help as I find it constructive and useful.

I have contacted iloveapphysics today after speaking with Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. When looking over the history etc I found that there appears to be an ‘edit war’ going on so as a newcomer I thought it best to seek help.

The reason I removed the suspension was because I felt it had been spent, the suspension was for four months and ended in 2019. The old information appeared to overshadow the positive aspects of this business owner. I also found it to be grossly unfair on the subject. I didn’t think too much of it hence the small explanation on minor edits. I can assure you that my edit was incidental and I knew nothing of the subject or the history before I edited the page.

I started looking into Iloveapphysics and noticed that the user has reverted the suspension previously and seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects. I tend to have a more positive approach and enjoy adding awards etc but I do understand that information must be truthful however here is the problem. Iloveapphysics appears to have it in for politicians and businessmen. I noticed that he/she enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects, whilst the info may/may not be factual it seems vicious and deliberately added to cause harm to these people. Another point I have noticed from I loveapppysics list of edits is that three of the people she edited appear to be high profile New York City politicians or lawyers who have sued politicians. Sheldon Silver, Alesessandra Biaggi and Adam Leitman Bailey. Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue and that is why he/she possibly created an attack page and keeps protecting it and reverts it without a talk page. There seems to be a pattern of behavior here. If the negative information is old or spent is it fair to leave it on? If the information is about another family member, is that fair? Surely the info harms the reputation of the living person especially if that person has a long list of accomplishments. Having done some research since the reversion doesn’t the above constitute attacks on subjects? Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts? Here are a few victims of iloveapphysics but there may be more:

Alexander De Croo

Marianna Madia

Sheldon Silver ‎

Alessandra Biaggi

Adam Leitman Bailey

I am a newcomer here but shouldn’t Iloveapphysics have discussed it with me on my talk page? I found being called a sockpuppet (whatever that is) to be rather rude, hence my investigation. I also believe that ‘reverting’ my edit like that WAS hostile and from what I have been reading ‘clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia’ let alone the essay on ‘encourage the newcomer’

 The talk page on Adam Leitmans account also aroused my interest.

Firstly there is a protection on the subject's Wikipedia account in the history, is this person the victim of attacks?

Other users on the subjects talk page make some valuable points:

WP G10 - this section constitutes an attack page

WP BLPCOI - Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used ‘for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities…

The language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WPBLPBALANCE, the phrasing “undignified conduct’ is slanted and goes against Wikipedia's policy that @the overall presentation and section headings should be broadly neutral”

Next you will see that another user has made some more interesting points:

Fourth, based on the conduct in April and May of 2019, which can be found in the talk history of this page, the person who is banned because the page was created by someone that openly swore to bankrupt and defame the subject, this Suspension from this page as per WP:G10 – as this section constitutes an attack page. It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey. Per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities' '. The person who rewrote the entire Wikipedia page and this section received a discretionary sanctions alert and caused "past disruption in this topic area", causing this page to be a semi-protected page. Fifth, the phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” I do not know any of the parties involved, but it is a shame to include these numerous attacks in April and May of 2019 and this alleged event in this Wikipedia page based on the importance of his work and the lack of information and proper Wikipedia etiquette followed when attacking Adam Leitman Bailey.

From my humble investigations I do think that these users make some really good points and the fact that iloveapphysics seems to want to bring down others surely this warrants an investigation on Wikipedia’s part.

Summary

On a personal level please consider these points so that my edit on Adam Leitman Bailey's page is reinstated or if it has to remain then perhaps it could be in the document but not under an aggressive heading. The reversion wars should be stopped once and for all and that other subjects won't fall victim to iloveapphysics. The edits on the other people are of concern to me but as I did not edit them there is nothing I can do about them.

I feel the information on the subject is not a fair representation.

The information is old and suspension has been lifted 4 years ago

The serious defamatory comments should be oversighted/deletion by suppression

Edit warring make the page history less useful

The suspension information is not encyclopedic

The heading and information on the suspension is aggressive, bold and detracts from the rest of the page.

It could be possible that the Wiki author of the suspension has tried to directly assault the subject and others because of a personal vendetta, be a competitor or someone with a grudge against politicians and successful business men/women

Iloveappphysics does not have a user page which I find suspicious, is he/she out to discredit others?

The fact that someone received a discretionary sanctions alert by vandalizing the subject's Adam Leitman Baileys page is also very concerning and the history of the edit wars should be investigated.

There is a pattern of behaviour with iloveapphysics in reference to politicians, business men and possibly lawyers in which case is there an interest in favouring one political party over another? making his/her interest interfering with being unbiased.

Here are some points I read on reverting

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favour of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Reverting drives away editors - Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists.

I apologise for this being so lengthy but as you may have noticed I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia as I have been busy collating all this information and trying to understand it for over a week. I also hope you will consider my points and take my contribution seriously. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Marnie - Bijou1995


 * , I have some questions for you: What is your connection to Adam Leitman Bailey? Did he or someone else ask you to edit this page? What is your connection to the other people who have commented at Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey? – bradv  12:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * There is no connection, nor is there any connection to the other people I mentioned. I live in the UK. I believe all these people are in the USA but I can't be sure, I'd have to look at their pages again.
 * Bijou1995 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's weird, since you are making the same edit and the same arguments as all those other accounts. What led you to this article? – bradv  12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I came across the article when trying to find something to edit ( sometimes I do a search for certain things) and took out the information because it was old (spent as we say in England) I didn't think anything of it really, I found it very negative and thought it was spiteful so I removed it.  As for the arguments I mentioned other people's arguments which I found when I did some research, they are not mine .  I only added them to give a clearer picture of the edit wars Bijou1995 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , the article makes it clear that the reliably-sourced suspension was only for four months. Are you claiming that he was not suspended despite the New York Law Journal saying that he was? If the suspension was overturned then you need to provide a reliable source saying so. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No I'm not saying that, I don't know if its been overturned or not my point is Illove physics seems to want to defame others, he called me a sock puppet but maybe he is. My edits are positive and I understand that if things are true then they should be on there but surely when the info is old or not directly related to that person as in one of the others I mentioned ( iloveapphysics adds info about crime in the family on another account) it just doesn't seem right because the info detracts from the rest of the article like defamation and these people suffer I imagine, it just doesn't seem fair and if ilovephysics has a Vendetta then shouldn't that be investigated? Bijou1995 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I empathize with your position . I honestly do except Wikipedia isn't about being fair. It's not even about being right. It's about reporting what is found in reliable sources. This is a typical position most people would take on various topics so don't feel bad or feel like anyone is trying to come down hard on you. I imagine people do suffer from things written on Wikipedia but not solely because it is on Wikipedia because Wikipedia only states what is found in those reliable sources. I think it can feel that way because of the extremely biased nature of what Wikipedia will allow to be included and because the encyclopedia coalesces all these sources together on one page. Wikipedia has to be biased to a degree because we can't allow just anything to be included and we are to take care to not include minority views on subjects just because they are there, especially when it comes to BLP's. It becomes problematic to start removing things from articles that we may not agree with simply because we think it isn't fair or we think that another editor may have a vendetta. It then becomes a slippery slope because what about the potential victims of said alleged crimes? This is why Wikipedia has rigid policies on notability and verifiability. I can appreciate where your heart is coming from and your concern for other people. I don't think someone should be accusing you of sockpuppetry without solid evidence to back that up. If they think you may be a sockpuppet then they should file an SPI rather than make accusations and cast aspersions. -- A Rose Wolf  18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello thank you for your very kind response, it's refreshing to receive a nice message. Sometimes I get scared when reading messages from other editors telling me I've done an edit wrong as they can be a bit rude but now and again I receive a kind message, so thanks again.
 * I do understand what you are saying but the rules of Wiki seem a little bias, for instance I did Google Mr Leitman Bailey yesterday as these conversations sparked an interest in me, I found this https://www.buildingfoundationsanddreams.com/ so he's obviously a good person despite that suspension, would it be ok if I added that if its not already on there? Although I feel for the others that iloveapphysics has attacked, they are not my edits so I cannot do anything about them apart from support them and try to get justice on their behalf. Do you not think that the heading of the suspension is a little brutal?  If I cannot get my edit reinstated then perhaps the info could still be in there without that ugly heading.  Or can the info be removed permanently at some point? I think what I am trying to say is that although the suspension is true, the article is not a true representation of that person, it is only a small part of their life but yet so damaging and could potentially hurt them and may have a negative effect on the good work they do as in the link above, ultimately aren't children especially 'children in need' more important than someone's ego of reverting an edit.  I do feel like I'm on some sort of crusade for all of these people and its not my intention to hurt iloveapphysics I just find their intention rather hostile and it appears they deliberately want to hurt others.  I'm not sure how things work in other countries but kindness should be at the heart of everything we do.  I am a Christian lady which is probably why i find iloveapphysics edits offensive.  Please consider removing all of the negative information for all the people I have mentioned especially my edit and please look into iloveapphysics account to check it is an authentic one. Please be kind when replying as stress flares up my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.
 * best wishes
 * Bijou1995 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue? Oh, you poor, poor, totally real, not-at-all-pulling-the-exact-same-shtick-as-the-dozen-other-sockpuppets-this-guy's-made British Christian lady. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Face it, Adam. Your Wikipedia page has a self-inflicted blot that won't be going away. No amount of SEO-optimized "charity" websites can fix it. Accept it, my dude. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr. IP, read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am a Christian lady, my church is st Mary's, Horsham, UK. I do have fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue and I can prove it.  I am extremely hurt by all these comments and actually I feel attacked, I was merely daring to point out the actions of another editor which I felt was wrong, I haven't edited since Friday 26th as it was a bank holiday here in the UK and I had a three day break.  I cannot reply to some people as they have removed the link to do so.  I do not know Adam Leitman Bailey and I only focused on this subject as this was my edit, I then looked into things and Genuinely thought things were amiss on other people's accounts too.   Bijou1995 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you appear to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. Information doesn't appear and information isn't removed based on what a subject "deserves" or an informal system of rewards and punishments. Nor do we seek out additional information for the specific purpose of rewarding people based on their virtue. Entries reflect the weight of the reliable sources covering the person and there are a lot that talk about this professional suspension.
 * Now, negative information should be weighed appropriately and very well source, per our BLP policies. However, accurate, well-source factual information is *not* "defamation" as you call it and your attacks here are largely without merit. Like, for example, your reference to Sheldon Silver. The poster in question simply added one sentence detailed a change in Silver's prison.
 * Frankly, there is a lot about your complaint that raises alarm bells, but even taking it in the best of faith, it's a complete stretch and certainly no conduct violation, and the charges you throw out are far closer to breaking rules than anything you actually allege. This ANI should end with a boomerang and at least a warning to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Warning. Bijou1995, your attacks against other editors above ("seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects", "enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects", "Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue ", "Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts?", "It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey") are completely unacceptable. Read No personal attacks and Assume good faith. One more and you will be blocked. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC).
 * PS, since the existing semiprotection has not been effective against some obvious socking, I have applied ECP protection to the article. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC).


 * Hello- I'm kind of shocked to be dragged into this. I am definitely not being paid by anyone and am surprised anyone would accuse me of defamation. Many of my edits have been to add reliably sourced and encyclopedic information, many have been to revert vandalism, and a few have gotten involved in edit/sockpuppet wars. In the past, when I have dealt with edit warring/sockpuppetry, I have consulted and abided by the appropriate authorities (as with the De Croo page). When more experienced editors have disagreed with my edits, I have not protested and abided by the consensus (as with the Biaggi page). I have never made any defamatory edits. What could the user possibly be referring to? I am not even the person who added the suspension to the Adam Leitman Bailey page, I simply added it back when it was deleted by a user subsequently banned for sockpuppetry. Because of this history, I thought it was appropriate to at least ask the question (not make an accusation) of whether another sockpuppet was responsible for the deletion again. I am just an ordinary Wikipedian who occasionally edits pages as a hobby (for zero pay), so I would appreciate any advice or suggestions for improvement, but I don't see how any of my edits constitute defamation. Thank you. Iloveapphysics (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry you've been subjected to this. The aspersions against you are completely unreasonable, I agree. That's why I warned Bijou1995 to cease and desist. If they hadn't been new, I would have blocked as soon as I saw the stuff about "defamation" and "vendettas". They haven't edited since my warning. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC).
 * Hello I was merely pointing something out that I thought was off, I haven't edited since Friday as it was a bank holiday here in the UK and I had a three day break. I am happy not to mention I loveapphysiscs again but I am shocked at how I have been treated too, accused of lying about my conditions and my faith, wow!  Being threatened to get blocked for feeling I had uncovered some skull duggery and having the guts to point it out.  I am from the UK, my church is st marys Horsham UK and I do have those conditions which flare up with stress, I am happy to prove it!  I won't say anymore as I am afraid I'll be blocked for speaking out, I was trying to make Wikipedia a better place cos that's what we are supposed to, isn't it? I like editing Wikipedia as I said it helps me feel connected.   Bijou1995 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Wikipedia is not here to provide comfort to you. This place is harsh and critical, and you're going to have to abide by the rules. The fact is that the article subject has employed people to scrub it of information that he finds unpleasant, so your edits are going to come under scrutiny.
 * I strongly suggest editing other, unrelated articles. And dial back the accusations when someone disputes your edits. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sun2293
is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their entire editing history is just inane talk page comments. Warnings have gone unanswered. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Enough of that. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and/or POV disruption by ISLAM HAMOU
Clearly WP:NOTHERE, as their edit summaries alone can show. Disruptive edits with particularly blatant (nationalist) POV in multiple articles, such as deletion of sourced content and disruptive word substitutions (including in the title of a reference) here, replacing a regular summary with nationalist nonsense here, replacing sourced content with previously removed disruptive WP:OR here and here. I posted a warning on their talk page, but unsurprisingly their latest disruptive edits immediately followed with personal attacks in their edit summaries:, ,. R Prazeres (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You just beat me to it. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 23:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: ISLAM HAMOU still at it. —  FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they)   ( talk ) 23:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not any more: blocked after that edit. –  . Raven .talk 00:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of talk page access by blocked user Eightbillion
User:Eightbillion, was blocked a month ago as WP:NOTHERE, as a consequence of their promotion of self-proclaimed second-coming-of-Christ and resurrectionist-for-profit Grigori Grabovoi. Having unsurprisingly failed to get the block rescinded, they are now abusing their talk page to request a proxy editor add content to the Grabovoi biography. Given policy regarding proxy editing, and given that the content proposed has already been rejected, and is not remotely compliant with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP (and common sense, and the obvious requirement that an encyclopaedia should not assume readers are complete imbeciles and/or lunatics), I hatted the material, noting relevant policy (no apologies for the blunt precis of the content). . Since Eightbillion has now reverted my hatting, and clearly intends to continue using their talk page to peddle this drivel, it would seem only proper to remove their talk page access. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ with a note reminding them that talkpage access during a block is generally to request unblocks, not continue the disruptive editing that caused the sanction in the first place. UTRS is available if they need it. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Long Term pattern of violations of WP:CIVIL by The Rambling Man
A user space is not a place for attacking an entire group of people, but that's what he's doing as the user space now reads Americans (most of whom have never left their country) are a real challenge here.... Can someone please admonish him for this? Also, his comments on WP:ITN, particularly, his outrageous statement that Your parochial little "one mass shooting every day" country is a disaster and shouldn't be ever used as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be. What an embarrassment. were also a violation of WP:CIVIL and were soapboxing, which he tends to do a lot. I don't want him blocked (although I suspect that if he were a new user, he would be), but I do think he should be admonished for this. I brought this up to him before bringing it here, in the hopes that he would listen and he just reverted it instead. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He also undid my notification about this. But that's fine. He's been informed of this discussion. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

*Nice comment. Stop being a snowflake, maybe. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck)
 * Maybe don't call people snowflakes? Read WP:CIVIL. Honestly, it's not just that TRM said this, if it was a one-off or occasional thing, I wouldn't really care. The problem is that it's been a pattern for him dating back years and years and it needs to be addressed for being disruptive. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No one cares about mass killings in the US (except some Americans) at ITN because the gun loving enablers of child murder (primarily in the republican party and it's conservative women-controlling, poor-hating, racist, sexist and ableist supporter base) have driven the country to a social failure of over 1 mass killing a day. A statistic that elsewhere is only in states at war or total breakdown. Uncivil? You would have to go a long long way just stating bare facts before you get to uncivil. Outside the US we care about them because they are so rare. Don't like being told why we don't care about the US? Go do something about it and don't whine because you hear something you don't like. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck)
 * That comment is extremely unhelpful and bordering on xenophobic, and telling someone "don't while because you hear something you don't like" is uncivil. Editors need to think about what they say and stick to the issues, and not use inflammatory wording.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. TrangaBellam and Only in death... should seriously consider striking these entirely uncivil comments. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree ... what if this game were played both ways ? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-65697782  Stop it, everyone, everywhere. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's absolutely xenophobic. But if TRM can get away with garbage like this, this, and this, it's hardly surprising that OiD feels safe posting such a hate-fueled message. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They have been doing it for years, and it is easy to check that in recent years this was the main part of their Wikipedia activity (they have zero edits in the article space in 2023 for example). However, they unfortunately have never been blocked for incivility and personal attacks, which apparently encourages them to continue and to harass people who disagree with them. Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck)
 * Don't like being told why we don't care about the US? I enjoy discussing that with my friends in private. But on Wikipedia, in an ITN discussion about a Japanese stabbing, it feels rather like an off-topic rant intended to get a reaction, doesn't it? DFlhb (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...really? Only in death, your comments violate WP:SOAP. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a truly reprehensible comment, and its genuinely astounding that someone would "amen to that!" to it. It should be struck, at least. Individuals are not responsible for policy failures. The idea that you feel like you're really taking a stand against the people actually responsible for gun deaths in the US by grandstanding against random people from the US on wikipedia is just ridiculous. You have no idea what people have "gone out and done" about it, but I can guarantee that they've done more than you and been brutally affected by it more than you, because they fucking live there. Parabolist (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You forgot antisemitic. But Europe ain’t much better in that regard. Artificial Nagger (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment is a personal attack, and should receive a formal admonishment at the very least. You should strike this comment and apologize. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8979:9557:569E:6302 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam That's an unacceptable and disappointing comment. Doug Weller  talk 08:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As Johnuniq notes, TRM's comments came in the context of a discussion which the OP has ignored. I will be more concerned about the America-centric biases of our user base that gets reflected in ITN discussions on a regular basis. But I trust your judgment and since you find it disappointing, I apologize. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As a one-off comment, perhaps it's a bit abrasive, but doesn't seem actionable. If there is indeed a long-term pattern, I think more than two diffs from the same context would be needed to establish this. If such a pattern IS established, then some admonition does seem warranted; if we replace "American" with any other nationality (e.g., "Iranians... ...are a real challenge here.") it seems like it would be taken as WP:NPA quite promptly. The fact that the US is one of the more privileged countries makes the attack less egregious, but it still seems like an attack on the editors, not the content of the argument. Also, the second diff seems to be attack a country, not editors, which while rude doesn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL. Disclaimer: I'm from the US, so my perspective may not be neutral.However, for this argument to apply, I feel there would have to be a documented history in the form of diffs, not just an assertion of a history. Even if a history were established, I don't think TRM would even need to apologize; a statement that he'll avoid categorizing whole groups of posters as problematic seems more than sufficient. And unless more diffs are provided, even that doesn't seem called for. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * TRM is a rude fellow, and always has been, but fwiw (and unlike the rest of it) "Americans (most of whom have never left their country)" is factually correct isn't it? Plus that's on his user page, where a good deal more latitude is normally allowed.  Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This always seemed like an elitist argument. Someone in the US heartland is geographically very far from any other countries and likely can't afford to travel to other countries. 2600:1700:B1E0:1620:61AD:445E:81F:F7B5 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , the assertion is factually wrong. According to this survey by Pew Research, 71% of American adults have traveled to another country. Unsurprisingly, those who are more prosperous and more educated are more likely to have visited other countries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks - interesting. I'm pretty sure it used to be true. From the link: "international travel is something a 71% majority of U.S. adults have done at some point in their lives, according to a June Pew Research Center survey. By contrast, around a quarter (27%) have not traveled abroad" - leaving 2% who aren't sure where the aliens took them? Or they just don't remember the 1960s at all, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest, . Honestly, more drama and trouble is being caused just by bringing this one-off remark to ANI, when hatting it alone would clearly have been sufficient. Furthermore, digging around in an established contributor's userspace and looking for problematic remarks is somewhat despicable, as I've stated a few times on MFD. I agree completely with . --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @WaltCip you and I had this same discussion two years ago, regarding BrownHairedGirl: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076. I'll quote part of my comment: As a community, we've often bent over backward to retain "net positive" editors, accepting the negative as part of the deal. The problem here is that we are implicitly privileging their contributions over those of whoever is on the receiving end of the "negative" behavior. I don't like shifting the burden of responsibility away from the editor. The Rambling Man chooses how to engage with the project; the community sets the boundaries. If nothing else, if the community does think his behavior's fine, then it probably ought to explain why. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking for the remark, I literally just happened to come across it, because it's not hidden in any way. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter that he's an established editor. And no, this isn't a one-off thing. If it was, I wouldn't have brought it here. This has been a pattern for at least as long as I've been a Wikipedia editor. Anyone who wasn't TRM would have been thrown out of the community now for his actions. Also, imagine if he had said this about a country that wasn't the US? Or if I had said this about another country? You'd be calling for blood. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The multiple (!) rude comments (snowflakes, really?) made in support of The Rambling Man give me pause. As to history, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. This is not a new issue because The Rambling Man doesn't see a problem with how he conducts himself, despite evidence to the contrary. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, but he's "established" though! &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The user space stuff is weird, but I don't think it's sanctionable. It does seem to be a temperment issue to write stuff like that on Wikipedia. This comment is uncivil and a borderline personal attack. The Rambling Man would be wise to review WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL because they are failing that on multiple fronts. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nemov, you removed a remark from when making your post. Would you be able to restore it? ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So sorry! Looks like someone else restored it. Nemov (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a long term issue with The Rambling Man. He "left the project" several months ago, and since then, a large number of his edits have been to make rude soapbox style comments at ITN and in other places. His abuse toward alone (context) would be enough for sanctions in my opinion. This is in addition to the general bigoted behavior that would have resulted in a ban a long time ago if it had been from a newer editor. This is very much a case of an editor being allowed to get away with a long term pattern of abuse because they have enough WikiFriends to come and back them up whenever they're reported for their problem behavior.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An interesting connection is that TRM removed Rockstone's post from his talk, while leaving the three unexplained posts about me for months. I suggest if purging talk to purge equally. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-issue, given the context. To be fair Rockstone (who usually strikes me as solid) did say "What the fuck is wrong with you.". But like, so what? Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that comment, made in exasperation, justifies things The Rambling Man wrote before it was made. Mackensen (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because TRM's comments were also made in exasperation, and while condescending (I wish he wouldnt do that), were not personal, and thus not NPA. Ceoil (talk)
 * EDIT, however, I do find the conversation highlighted by Thebiguglyalien above, and left on [[User:SandyGeorgia's talk, as troubling and poor form indeed. Ceoil (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ceoil, they were not on my talk. They were on on TRM's talk and on another editor's talk.  TRM had declined to come to my talk to explain, or to allow me to post on his talk or ask for clarification elsewhere. The post on my talk is because I asked his friends to intervene lest it come to an ANI on TRM (as it now has); his friends did not intervene, and here we are, with as yet unexplained hostility. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry was unclear, but yes I know as the thread opens with "The Rambling Man has specifically asked me not to post to their talk page". Which is more than rich. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Rockstone, Thebiguglyalien, Mackensen, and GhostOfDanGurney. Bullying and other uncivil behavior is prohibited on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that TRM has known this for his fifteen years of contribution to the project. The worst thing is that we know this, too. If an IP did this, or a newbie user, we'd have blocked and banned them indefinitely, with email and talk page access revoked, and the only way to restore them is via a ticket to the WP:UTRS, which (to a newbie user) is too much of a hassle, and they walk away from the project forever. Then, when these veteran users show up and do the exact same thing, we give them infinite passes because of their "positive" contributions to Wikipedia, ignoring the users that are the recipients of the negative contributions. In fact, this should be the other way around: newbies get more good faith and leeway when making bold edits (perhaps they haven't taken the time to read through WP:CIVIL) and veterans have to set the example with good, constructive editing in name/user/talk/draftspace. With TRM having "quit" the project about a year ago, and having made edits almost solely of the WP:SOAP kind, I believe that his time on WP should come to a close. Veterans acting like this sets a bad example to all editors. One might think, "if so and so, who's been editing for years, can act uncivil, why can't I"? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rockstone35, you’re overreacting here and, if a message on someone’s user page and a one-off rant against a country in a discussion is the worst misbehaviour from a long-time editor you can come up with, this is really a very poor case to insist on admonishing someone. Just to give some context here, The Rambling Man is a prolific editor who’s been around for a very long time and had been regularly writing FAs on the annual editions of The Boat Race before a discussion earlier this year concluded to remove it from WP:ITNR. As a result of that discussion in which the drawn parallels with amateur sport events in the US were dismissed probably by editors based there, they most likely got disappointed and gave up their work on The Boat Race 2023, which is unfortunately of insufficient length and quality to become an FA (compare it with The Boat Race 2022). So, regardless of how abrasive someone’s comments from time to time are, if they don’t violate WP:NPA, we shouldn’t clamp down on editors and should weigh their (mis)behaviour against their contributions. By the way, your direct response to them contains curse words that also violate WP:CIVIL and are much closer to violating WP:NPA, but it’d be totally unproductive for someone to report it and solicit admonishment. My recommendation is to begin with an attempt to settle it on their talk page and use this page as a last-resort option.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kiril Simeonovski there's the prior arbitration case, which was based in large part on the same behavior. There's his treatment of SandyGeorgia over the last year, which @Thebiguglyalien noted above. I might also add his deliberately inflammatory comments during the Doug Coldwell business last year, during which he attacked multiple editors and refused to see anything wrong with Doug's conduct: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108. You appear to be taking the line that the Rambling Man's positive contributions (which are many, no one disagrees, least of all me) entitle him to behave in ways that we would not and do not accept from others. I don't think that encourages a positive editing environment, quite the opposite in fact. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t say they should be allowed any kind of misbehaviour because of their contributions, just that this is a procedurally bad case to demand someone to be reprimanded. The reporter seems to have cirvumvented settling the problem on the editor’s talk page and went directly here. Also, it’s unclear what the sanction would look like (surely not a block as mentioned by the reporter, but probably not a WP:TBAN either). If it’s just for a rebuke, really no need to go thus far. This should be approached from a different perspective and, if there’s more evidence of misbehaviour, the case should be much better founded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the reporter did attempt to settle it on the user's talk page. Rambling Man deleted the posts with the edit summary "hush". Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to find this if that’s what was removed but didn’t find anything about the message on the user page for which admonishment is demanded. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like the right approach to report this and solicit a rebuke on a page where the use of admin tools is requested.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Kiril makes a good point. The discussion to remove The Boat Race from ITN/R, as well as the subsequent ITN/C discussion in which an overwhelming wave of people piled on to prevent it from being posted to ITN, where it had been previously posted for the past 7 or 8 years, probably disillusioned TRM to a large degree. I can hardly blame him for being bitter when people have treated his hard work on these articles with such contempt, on the basis of an already illusory standard of significance (nowhere else on Wikipedia do we have such odd editorialization when it comes to notability). ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is not an accurate description of what happened. Most people who opposed the ITN nomination in March 2023 opposed on quality, which as you can see at the article is valid. TRM likely is bitter, and so took his ball and went home in not improving the article to FA standards as he had in the past. Nobody is stopping him from getting another FA on the 2023 boat race. This is no excuse for their uncivil behavior, which preceded the ITNR decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we're lucky, this will finally convince the community to step in and fix the OR-ridden, notability-ignoring soapbox that is ITN. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions on how to fix it are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of my suggestions can be found in discussions that I've initiated or participated in here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would matter that he's bitter. There's a lot of things that I've been bitter about with Wikipedia over the years, but I don't take it out on others. That's called being civil. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just this one user page comment. TRM was back on ITN/C with more uncivil bangers like "seems strange to see Americans opposing this mass killing, when they routinely support the regular mass shootings in the US. Multiple killings in any country not at war is unusual unless it's the United States, so this is definitely newsworthy". I'd be happy to see TRM banned from ITN entirely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that there's been more evidence presented a TBAN from ITN seems like a good place to start. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Par for the course WP:BATTLEGROUND with TRM at WP:ITNC. Frequently drops in pejorative Amurica too: It's bygones already. No-one cares about it, it's not encyclopedically significant. Yet another mass shooting in Amurica, nobody, not even most Americans, care. We're not at a pub with a pint. —Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * TRM is long overdue for a tban from ITN. I quit commenting there long ago because it was an utter cesspool, but to this day I can well remember how unpleasant he was. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The diffs that prompted this ANI are underwhelming and unactionable. However the diffs demonstrating this incident is part of very longterm toxic behavior are compelling, and I am astounded to see such nastiness coming from TRM's supporters in this thread; if this divisiveness is typical of the environment at ITN then perhaps a good chunk of the regulars on both sides of the Atlantic should take a long break from that area. Such behavior would be extraordinary in most other places on wiki (and I say that as someone who participates almost exclusively in contentious AfDs). JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It's fascinating how quickly we've gone from someone said something mean about my country, the most powerful one in the world to let's look at every edit this evil anti-US bigot commienazi has ever made going back before 2016.

Nice drumhead trial we've got going on here. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 19:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been a chronic, intractable problem for many years. If this isn't appropriate for ANI, what is? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The legitimacy of your filing is evidenced by the fact that none of the arguments presented in TRM's defense have held water. In that context, it's unsurprising to see that someone decided to try the strawman strategy. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 22:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No action necessary IMHO. Look, I'll be the first to admit that TRM's comments cause me to cringe at times, but the matter posted here hardly seems like the most shining example of that. The posts in question, on TRM's own talk page, were not aimed at any editor in particular, but instead dwell simply on the longstanding truism that Americans and Brits have a very different way of looking at life, and forging overall consensus on Wikipedia is somewhat harder as a result of that, something that's especially true in ITN, where we have no actionable policy in play and all decisions are left up to the will of the masses combined with admin "discretion", leading to a lot of unnecessary bad blood. TRM is basically dormant at the moment, but a year or two ago he was contributing quite productively with a strong win in the 2021 WikiCup and an improved relationship with DYK too. I for one hope that he'll be back here at some point in the future, adding more to our project as before, but that isn't going to happen if we keep throwing mud at him. As I've said to Sandy previously, I am happy to publicly urge TRM to avoid making negative comments on the project to Sandy and to others, and I would be really really happy if Sandy and TRM were able to talk through their differences, but that's out of my hands. Conversely, those of us here do have the power in our hands to either act or not act, and I'd ask those calling for blood above to please take a step back from the keyboard and remember that there's a real human being at the other end of the line, who has given this project much, and who can continue to do so. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru it's perverse to on the one hand acknowledge someone is uncivil, rude, and generally toxic, while on the other imploring people to remember that there's a real human being at the other end of the line. Is it fair to ask the same thing of TRM? Is everyone else chopped liver? Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the posts in question were not only at TRM's talk page. The over-the-top soapboxing that spawned this report is from ITN. And do you really believe it is fair or appropriate for you, an administrator, to accuse editors of calling for blood because they dared to suggest that an editor with a years-long history of blatant incivility should finally face consequences for his actions? No, I would submit that such language is simply unhelpful. I'm well aware that there have always been a contingent of editors who think issues like civility are unimportant because this is supposedly some kind of shop floor, but thankfully that kind of backwards thinking seems to be falling out of favor. And as for the whole 'remember that there's a human being at the other end of the line', when in the world has TRM ever bothered with that? No, this is an editor with a long history of treating other editors like dirt. He does not need to be protected or enabled any further. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just a single instance. If this was the only time TRM had ever said something like this, I wouldn't have bothered bringing this here. But this has been a pattern of behavior that has gone on for way too long, and is quite frankly disruptive, and needs to stop, for the sake of the project. I'm not calling for blood, I'm calling for him to be admonished that this behavior is unacceptable. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * why is getting TRM to talk to me about "out of [your] hands"? Have you asked him to?  Forecefully (as in casting aspersions is not in his best interest)?  Has he refused?  I reference Barkeep49's essay; you are as much a friend of TRM as anyone, and if he won't respond to you, well, then ... ??? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - I'm fairly sure was aware of my position on his dispute with you before today, and I'd imagine he was aware of your questions about it on your talk page back in February; I'm assuming he's decided for personal reasons not to answer those queries, despite the fact that it would help his case and be generally extremely positive if he stopped making personal attacks towards you. But just to be clear, I have left a message on his talk page here, asking him to either attempt to build bridges with you, or at the very least to desist from making those comments going forward. Outside of that, as you say TRM is a good friend of mine and we've worked together extensively on-wiki in the past, but it's still "out of my hands" in the sense that TRM's free to take or leave my advice as he sees fit. At the very least I do hope you and I won't fall out over this, I also regard you as a good friend and I'm not happy that those comments were made about you; but beyond the above I'm not sure there's a whole lot more I can do here. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thx, ; I don't "fall out" easily over differences of opinion, and I appreciate the intent. :)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trey Maturin is your comment meant to be helpful to TRM and/or the project? Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have I stopped beating my wife? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 21:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No no, you've done it all wrong. That's the snarky response to a loaded question, but I didn't ask a loaded question. I did offer you an opportunity to withdraw something you shouldn't have posted in the first place, or to double down if you really did mean what you said. Asked and answered, I suppose. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * One thing that really bothers me about conversations like this is that it does appear some editors abide by two rules. There's one rule for editors who aren't viewed as productive and then there's another set of rules for editors who are perceived as productive. Wikipedia needs productive editors, so I understand the apprehension to act, but how many productive editors are bullied out of the community by these productive, uncivil editors? Amakuru above asked that those asking for something to be done to please take a step back from the keyboard and remember that there's a real human being at the other end of the line. It's a worthy thing to ask, but I would ask that you take that same empathy towards the people running into editors like TRM. Nemov (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a long term AN/I watcher, I remember the first time I saw TRM trolling. David Cameron and Julia Gillard were Prime Ministers; Barack Obama was President; Collateral Murder had just been released on Wikileaks and some IPs were wondering if that was the same as Wikipedia.  And it was only new to me, because I hadn't been here before -- the AN/I regulars in those days had seen it going on for years.  We've been letting TRM get away with being a total arse for about two decades because he's one of the vested contributors Wikipedia pretends it doesn't have.  Do something, sysops.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone suggested a topic ban from ITN. That would probably help, although it wouldn't do anything about his treatment of Sandy Georgia. The previous arbitration case, besides determining that his resignation as a sysop was under a cloud, crafted a remedy that prohibited him from "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." This proved unenforceable, for obvious reasons. The Rambling Man can't help but cross any number of lines interacting with other editors, and there are those on this project who will afford him every chance and excuse. I think if someone were to go back to arbitration, it could only be for a siteban. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why anyone should have to go through all the pain of crafting an Arbcom case when the smoking gun diffs are right here in this thread.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support an indefinite community topic ban from ITN for him. That's not why I brought his behavior to ANI, but it's an option. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, the funny thing is, if this is closed as no action it sets the precedent that you are free to act as you will, regardless of policy if you have significantly contributed to the project. Not a good look, just saying. Perhaps some of TRM's supporters should look at it a broader sense rather than someone being "soft". Also, calling snowflake is not an excellent way to de-escalate a situation, in fact as we can see it makes relations even more frosty. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unquestionably a net negative, and even his boosters can’t defend his obnoxious bullshit. He’s upset he didn’t get his boat race blurb so he can act like a petulant child with impunity? Well besides the fact that he’s been acting the same way for quite a long while prior to that removal from ITNR (with overwhelming consensus I might add). Get off it, any other editor with a last hundred contribution list like his would be shown the door if not for being an UNBLOCKABLE. All he does now is pick fights at ITN and insult editors who do far more work for Wikipedia today than he does. But he has his fans, for whatever reason, and so my bet is the only group that will be able to give him what he’s asking for (and that’s a site ban) is ArbCom. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation: "my bet is the only group that will be able to give him what he's asking for (and that's a site ban) is ArbCom". Another arbcase, when there has already been one for essentially the same behaviors, means even more disruption and wasted time for the community.  The community can solve the problem, but doing so means correctly identifying it. Neither of the proposals below target the core problem: TRM is unable to interact collegially and respectfully in content review processes, and when he hasn't gotten his way (eg, the Boat Race issue), the behavior has morphed into generalized and unspecific attacks on other editors and nationalities, or other behaviors like reverting FAC Coords when they close a nomination. The problems at DYK, ERRORS and ITN are documented in the first arbcase.  The problems at ITN continue in this ANI.  The personalization in the Doug Coldwell GA situation have been raised in this thread.  Problems with his interactions in featured processes (FAC and FL) are mentioned in the thread from my talk page, which was unsuccessful in seeking an end to talk page hostility. A civility restriction in talk space, along with a topic ban from all content review processes seems an appropriate target.  There may be others, but in this context, content review processes means peer review, ITN, DYK, OTD, ERRORS, GA pages, and all featured content pages (FA, FL, FP, TFA, etc). His supporters point out he continues to make good edits in mainspace; the problems occur in interacting with others when their opinions on content differ from his. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Point of order: I will ask editors here (and in the proposals below) to stop commenting on other users, directly or indirectly. Incivility has always been an issue at ANI, but this is clearly getting out of hand in this thread. Remain civil and stay focused on the topic at hand. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think this thread will end in anything except "no consensus", and the levels of incivility here from both sides is quite concerning. I propose we shut down this thread and take this to ArbCom, where we can actually get a result. And finally, please try to keep all future replies civil, wherever they are at. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm biased of course, but I think there is a rough consensus for an indefinite ban from ITN. If not, the next time TRM causes disruption like this, I'll bring it to ARBCOM. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I count it there's 7 !votes between support and oppose. I don't think that the discussion is at a "consensus" yet. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen consensus made even when the votes are even. Whoever closes this discussion will have to decide on the weight of arguments, I guess. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s crystal clear nothing will come of this because no admin will touch this with a 10ft button, the fact being there’s no consensus on what to actually do with TRM. Maybe slap him around with a smoked herring? I dunno. TRM, can you please dial it back a bit? Especially with your insults towards middle-North America. It’s upsetting people needlessly and there’s nothing they can do to address your issues, so pretty please, with sugar on top? Unless it’s really funny, but no one’s accused you of making them snort milk through their nasal passages. Artificial Nagger (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)}}
 * Honestly, my hope was that he would just apologize and dial it back. Alas. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: ITN topic ban for The Rambling Man
Don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but this proposal seems to have gained some traction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support whatever positive contributions TRM may have made in the past, he is by his own admission no longer contributing. That is, except to be nasty. We don't need it, and he doesn't need it either. Time to move on. After all, he wouldn't want to be bothered with us ex-colonials any more, would he? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 01:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: ITN does not appear to be the core problem here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its at least a start though. You are free to propose other sanctions (perhaps a civility restriction ala the one ArbCom sanctioned him with but later rescinded), or maybe even a site ban, if you feel that is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Low-hanging fruit can be a good start, and doesn't preclude further action, if needed. —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess I'll point out that TRM doesn't appear to participate at ITN all that often anymore, with the three edits linked above his only edits there this month. Going back through the prior 10 takes you to January 2023. Those ten include three normal comments, a run of three that probably have more heat than light (more complaining about the US , , ), the boat race complaining linked above , and a run in January with the same theme (Americans and guns) but less rant/rave than the recent batch. So I'm not sure how much disruption an ITN ban will really prevent... Ajpolino (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with those who are concerned that it won't be enough and that we'll all be back here, but it's clear from the above discussion that his participation there is a net negative and that the problem is intractable. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TRM is a negative at ITN, always demeaning Americans and making an already contentious area into a toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I agree this doesn't deal with his behavior off of ITN/C but it's a start. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Nothing much to lose except negativity. BorgQueen (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support an ITN TBAN for . He has already "left" and returns mostly to start fights at ITN. I would not oppose to a full site ban for decade-long civility issues that he has declined to correct, and I support a TBAN with the expectation that any further behavioral infractions, even minor ones, will result in a sitewide cban. I also support a logged warning for . Their comment here falls well within the rough description of hate speech listed at WP:HID, and the only reason I'm not supporting stronger sanctions here is in the hope that this was out of character, though I advise them to spend less time in project space debates and more building the encyclopedia.Less formally, I strongly suggest that several of the editors in the above discussion seriously reconsider how they conduct themselves on Wikipedia before they find themselves in the same position. The editors endorsing and enabling this behavior are not guilt-free here, especially if they know the extent of Rambling Man's conduct violations but try to present this as an isolated incident or a non-issue. Finally, I'd like to see this as a rebuttal of two tired arguments: that being a "productive contributor" is a major factor in whether repeated civility violations are tolerated, and that "leeway" in userspace allows editors to engage in soapboxing or other disruptive behavior. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Question What will be the duration of the WP:TBAN?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By the fact I didn't mention it, indefinite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. This was needed years ago, but better late than never. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think a TBAN from ITN goes far enough. Reviewing the context of the SandyGeorgia attacks, The Rambling Man appears to be an editor who commonly disrespects other editors. This type of behavior would warrant a SBAN for most editors. The Rambling Man should have to atone for these serious behavioral issues. If he would rather walk away that's fine, but if he wants to stay major behavioral changes need to be made. Nemov (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least I'd support a topic ban, but it would do little to discourage the bad behavior. I also support the proposal presented by SandyGeorgia. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You want TRM to ”atone”? That’s not what blocks are for. In fact there’s no basis anywhere on WP for any action that requires, needs or wants any form of atonement. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what I see Sandy recommending in that edit. I see: TBAN (broader than this one ("All content review processes") + Civility restriction. Which sounds good to me. A future apology or remediation would maybe be required to lift those restrictions. But for now, those would be the best targeted. I agree with Sandy and Nemov. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather obviously I have quoted Nemov, not anyone else. We have never required users to atone or apologise - and quite right too: forcing an apology is pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Given TRM's long-term misbehavior, and the fact that he apparently hasn't changed after going up to ARBCOM several times, this should be an SBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that can't be a separate proposal, without opposing this initial step? —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose TRM's original comment was a brief opinion to the effect that 2023 Nagano attack (four killed in an attack in Japan) should be in the news. I don't see why Wikipedia should protect people from hearing opinions they don't like such as TRM's additional brief comment about Americans opposing the item. It is a real problem that four dead in Japan is extremely newsworthy yet doesn't rate by US standards. Rather than be offended, people should dwell on the substance of the issue raised. Ignoring an unwelcome opinion should be easy and would be much more intellectually healthy than rejecting the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinions are fine. But does it need to make assumptions about !voters' nationalities, or generalizations on how they all must surely all think the same? Or resort to his WP:BATTLEGROUND Amurica schtick:  —Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support SBAN for TRM and logged warnings for Only in death and TrangaBellam - TRM appears to no longer want to contribute to the project and instead focus their time on the uncivility that has plagued their contributions uncorrected for a very, very long time. It is time to be shown the door. OiD's comment, as pointed out by Thebiguglyalien, is a clear violation of WP:HID as it attacks ...other editors based on their membership in [a] group, while TrangaBellam made a personal attack in this discussion towards Rockstone35 &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN or SBAN for TRM - This has been a constant problem for TRM, for far more than a decade now, and it's been consistently disruptive. We've banned users for less. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN and SBAN enough is enough. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - His comment might have been a little harsh, but it's not worthy of a topic ban. And while editors don't have to agree with, or support, TRM's opinion, it certainly should be tolerated in a diverse community.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">(talk)</b> 10:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * TRM's "opinion" that "Americans are a real challenge here" should be "tolerated in a diverse community"? 72.213.11.193 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This very obviously is about far more than one comment. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Meh, storm, meet teacup, with added over-reaction and a serving of dramah. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Blunt and straight to the point. Mass shootings and school shootings are an everyday thing in the US - not so much anywhere else!. Snowflakes being snowflakes as per. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins, exactly how many personal attacks are going to be permitted in this thread until some sort of action is taken? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1993:A115:D287:2EF0 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All of them. Let everyone put their thoughts on record. Given the participants, no civility enforcement would ever stick anyway. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that editors shouldn’t be expected to maintain basic levels of civility when replying here. It’s becoming far too hostile for folks to respond here without feeling threatened. I’m disappointed in your response. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1993:A115:D287:2EF0 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect there was more than a hint of sarcastic anger in Mackensen's voice when he wrote that. And I fully concur. It is a sad indictment on the admins who frequent this board that none of them can be bothered to lift a finger in response to repeated, overt personal attacks under their very noses. While I agree that some of TRM's critics have also crossed the line over into incivility (and they should cut it out), it is beyond the bounds of credulity to suggest, as some have done below, that the hostility is evenly distributed among both camps. It is readily apparent that the editors opposing sanctions have no compelling argument to present in TRM's defense. As a result, they've resorted to employing tunnel vision (only acknowledging the immediate diffs that prompted this thread and ignoring everything else) or attacking other participants in the thread. Hopefully the closing admin will weigh such comments accordingly. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 18:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Considering the only opposition (like from our old buddy Davey2010) is “those damn snowflakes!!”, I think we all know which decision is composed of editors looking to make constructive actions for the project. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Given there are editors who make constructive actions for the project on both sides of the debate here, your comment is woefully out of line. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even as someone strongly in favor of a TBAN, I agree your comment is out of line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- TBAN from ITN. TRM should had learned his lesson by now that being crass and forcing opinions on an article are not acceptable as per the soapbox rule. As Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral site where fair and unbiased perspectives come to discuss. Not one's political opinions shall be enforce on others. Rager7 (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * But only the "oppose" side is launching further personal attacks on and gaslighting the other with wholly empty BOOMERANG threats, which is partially why we are here to begin with. Very telling. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s just not true, I’m afraid. I’ve highlighted at least one example in this thread and there are many others of varying degrees. The incivility at ANI has been rising for years now, and it seems to be the norm, unfortunately: that is as true from both sides of this discussion as elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling snowflakes snowflakes doesn't make myself or others any less productive here. As indeed noted by Schrocat there are incivility from both sides. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say that the side in favor of the siteban is also participating in personal attacks at times. This thread is a mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still derogatory, uncivil, and needlessly inflammatory. "But they're being uncivil too" is no excuse. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 16:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's none of those things, the truth is what it is, Never said it was an excuse nor am I using it as one - I was simply pointing out there's incivility from both sides not just the Opposers. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although I agree that constantly attacking TRM probably does contribute to the aforementioned toxic atmosphere somewhere down the line, as indicated by the increasingly shrill and, what desperately? bizarre calls for site bans, etc., as above, and against editors who seemingly dare defend him. Much of the anger seems to be based on subjective and self=-validating notions of individual 'civility'; it would be interesting to see a walled garden such as ITNC be placed under a similar microscope: "Never have I encountered so many little egos colliding with each other", as Obi-Wan might have said if Mos Eisley was ever unfortunate enough to get its own crowd-based free multilingual online encyclopedia. Interestingly, I see many of the voices here calling for sanctions are familiar users at ITNC; I see far fewer from FAC where his work as both writer and reviewer—was probably as acerbic but still seen as a benefit rather than a negative to the project. (And, incidentally, if anyone thinks I Stan for TRM, note that I  voted to remove the Boat Race from ITNR in that discussion. There are a lot of patronising words—verging on the uncivil, perhaps—here, such as 'taking his ball away', etc., regarding TRM, but I suspect he knew that, as the fella said, 'it's nothing personal, purely business'. In the same spirit, I also voted to remove other sporting events.) The takeaway from that is, perhaps, to treat people as you want to be treated; a truism which does not apply, colleagues, to just the one of us here today.Right, on that note, that's me back to my exile on Main Street. Cheers,   SN54129  14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)  BTW, and without wanting to speak for TRM or to double guess him, if he does consider the Boat Race to be his baby, he's probably entitled to, having brought nearly every single discrete article on the individual races to either GA or FA status—that's got to be, what, 150? Taking the point a step further, if anyone goes on to wonder if he felt the subject was under constant attack at ITNR, that's probably because it was repeatedly nominated for removal, even from the beginning. Having been listed at ITNR  in 2014, it was then listed for removal in 2015, 2016, and again in 2019. Just a thought.   SN54129  14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite the fact that this process is being carried out poorly, there are some arguments in favour of a temporary WP:TBAN, and the main reason that prevented me from voting was the indefiniteness in the proposal. I really thought this was a constructive good-faith discussion with only a couple of procedural questions that need to be addressed before coming to a resolution until the comment I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other, violating WP:CIVIL and accusing a bunch of experienced editors for canvassing, appeared below. Unfortunately, fighting incivility with incivility won't solve the problem.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I question the wisdom of tossing out the good faith of this entire discussion because of one intemperate comment, I much more strongly question why it is so important for the tban to be temporary. TRM has been disruptive, rude, uncivil, xenophobic... etc. for years. A short-term tban is an inadequate sanction, and there's no reason to believe that the behavior wouldn't resume as soon as the sanction expired. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My personal philosophy is that editors should never get indefinite blocks/bans on any wiki in any language no matter what they do in the same way many countries in the world no longer have capital punishment. Instead, gradually increasing the duration of the block/ban should always work. I've indefinitely blocked an editor only once at the time when the longest block on that wiki was one year after the same editor had previously served that punishment, and I voluntarily unblocked the editor after random block duration was introduced on the wiki and he had been blocked for three years. As I pointed out in the discussion on the WP:SBAN below, the longest duration this editor has ever been blocked/banned was one month, so I can procedurally support a block/ban up to three months, which gradually comes next after a month. Unfortunately, this discussion turned into a battleground with incivility on both sides, so the arguments that the editor should be blocked/banned because of his alleged incivility fade away.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I do not agree that the incivility in this thread has been evenly distributed among both sides. Even if it were, that is not a sound argument for failing to deal with the well-established pattern of long-term incivility by TRM. While I understand your philosophy up to a point, there comes a time when enough is enough, and I feel that TRM has reached that limit. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 19:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely TRM's conduct stands or falls on its own merits. Mackensen (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinite bans are more equivalent to life in prison than the death penalty. They're indefinite, not final. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind, every block/ban should be definite in my opinion. After multiple gradual increases, there'll always be one that'll practically be for life.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN from ITN. Would accept a civility restriction as a second choice. These uncivil comments are out of hand, and it's clear this user is not meaningfully contributing to the topic area. If and when he decides to do so, he is welcome to appeal. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Since their only contributions to ITN at this point are to be uncivil and cause drama, I don't see why they should retain access to the area of the project. If they aren't wanting to contribute anymore to ITN< then they need to go away. Silver  seren C 16:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN per above and past experiences with TRM (albeit they were isolated to ANI — a very emotionally charged place from my experiences — so I think it's fair to cut them slack there). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The least that should be done. Not sure what the point of having a civility policy is if multiple comments like the ones visible in the diffs above don't result in some sort of sanction. Hatman31 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - TRM has had years to right their own behavioral ship and they've proven either unwilling or incapable of doing so. Attacking entire nationalities due to criminal events which happen in their countries is not acceptable. They're own declaration of NOTHERE is telling. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, per the extensive history of incivility. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Places like that need disenting voices.    scope_creep Talk  01:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this point? ITN needs dissent, so we should have someone who just spurs drama and uncivility to create opposition? Also, I really question the notion that ITN needs dissenting viewpoints; if anything ITN has too much dissent to the point where you have folks like him running around and giving that place the infamous reputation it has on Enwiki. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support without prejudice against further sanctions. It's clear that TRM is unable to participate at ITN without frequent instances of incivility. The repeated egregious comments from him make this the bare minimum at this point. Recent edits seem to make it obvious TRM now only participates at ITN to troll and rant. TRM has been disruptive and uncivil for far too long, and allowed to get away with it. That needs to end, and will set a precedent that further disruption will be met with sanctions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN from ITN at the very least - I am utterly baffled by the logic that because TRM made a few FAs here and then and that the Boat Race was removed that we have to get on our knees and fellate him "because he's rightfully bitter and is also a longtime contributor!" Bro has not even been active on the project for seven months - yet even though all his contribs since them have been BS bar fights, we're really finna use the argument of "well he made substantial contribs in the past." I support a TBAN from ITN at the least - TRM has had a chance to course correct for a while. He's had long-term issues with civility, respect, and the like for literal decades. Some of you may respond by saying that saying decades is misleading since he's only been on the site for about two decades, to which I will reply by stating, don't you think the fact that I was able to factually state he's been doing this for decades indicative of how serious this issue is? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 02:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The incivility or the political aspects by TRM are far far underwhelming compared to the majority of what we let slide across the project. This seems like people who have not been on the project that long taking offense at something that really isn't an issue, unless we start to do apply the same standard across the board. TRM is not very active at ITN much any more, and his incivility caused by a political statement is tame. --M asem (t) 03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been a Wikipedia editor since I was in 7th grade back in 2007.. More than 16 years now. And TRM has been a problem for a lot of it, although at least he was a good namespace editor before he retired from doing anything but causing drama on ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  04:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In contrast to others at ITN who are as just about "uncivily" civil, TRM has done little that can be actionable, or that would require several other editors (on order of a dozen or so) that would need similar reprimand. And particularly in comparison to the whole on WP, to punish TRM for this while we let actual true incivility run rampant would be BS. Is TRM a constant name in the more problematic debates? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have broken any decorum expected of any WP editor. M asem (t) 04:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, usually I agree with your opinions here, but I really don't understand. This has been a constant disruptive problem with him. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * that would require several other editors (on order of a dozen or so) that would need similar reprimand – Yes, let's do that. I'm baffled why we haven't already.
 * Is TRM a constant name in the more problematic debates? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have broken any decorum expected of any WP editor. – If he's regularly the one to make them problematic through bigoted behavior and incivility, then that's exactly what it means. It's so bad that he was desysopped and topic banned over it, and it hasn't stopped.
 * Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When reviewing WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, WP:UNCIVIL and WP:ESDOS, it's impossible to defend TRM's edits. If it was a one time thing I could understand, but this has been a problem with this editor for quite some time. If nothing is going to be done about this, what's the point in having these guidelines? Nemov (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...also, there is no universe in which we would allow someone to refer to any other nationality as being "a real problem here" on their user space without them getting (rightfully) blocked for incivility and xenophobia. Nor would we allow someone to refer to another country as a "disaster" or "as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be". I understand that the US is the most powerful country in the world and so I guess TRM is "punching up" by targeting the US, but still. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We all know at ITN that when the subject of a shooting in the US comes up, things get heated really fast, and yes, no one should be dragging US politics into the mix; I've called for such concerns on the talk page many times. But TRM is not the first, not the last, to be doing that. TRM should know better, and they have purposely backed off ITN participation of late to the point that it is very easy to see when they respond and likely see some type of incivility there. I'm all for ANI-based caution, but again, civility without being directed any any specific editor is near impossible to enforce or we have to enforce it across the entire board, and I'm pretty sure that will not happen. M asem (t) 04:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but what about TRM's user space? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  05:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don’t like what he says in his user space, don’t look at it. You may not like some very mild criticism of a country, but avoidance means you won’t have to overreact next time. Let’s put the comment in perspective: the US is not going to fall over or crumble just because one person on WP criticises it (it would be a worryingly weak country if such a mild comment caused actual problems). - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * of course it wouldn't, but it's the principle of the thing. If I said the same thing about British people on my user page, I'd expect to be admonished. Also, it's not that he's criticizing the US. There's lots of things I can criticize the US for, it's that he's complaining about an entire nationality. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve read much much worse about Brits during my time on WP and ... meh. If people get frustrated and vent on their user page, I just don’t bother going to their page, but then I’m not easily triggered by complaints about my country or nationality (and we actually have freedom of speech here, rather than just paying lip service to it). The comment that has caused all this dramah fest is mildly rude, but isn’t worth the brouhaha that has followed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Which country is this? I'm curious now. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I’ve said: Brits, so UK. I’ve always taken it more as a reflection of the person making the comment than anything worthy of dramah monger ing or a crusade to get a user blocked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh, OK. I haven't seen anyone say anything rude about the UK in my time here, but I guess we're all more sensitive to our own country. Also, I don't know if you're trying to imply that the US *doesn't* have free speech, but it certainly does, sometimes to crazy extremes. It's irrelevant though; Wikipedia can block people for whatever reason it wants. (I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm sure you know that ). Anyway, it's just a long pattern of this behavior from TRM; if this was the first time he'd have said something like this, I wouldn't have bothered bringing it here, but unfortunately it's years and years at this point. I just know whenever I see him post on ITN that it's going to be drama. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, and what I’ve seen (often directed at me) makes the comment by TRM seem like faint praise. TBH, it’s a nothing comment he’s made that barely pokes above the uncivil line and certainly not not something worthy of a block. It’s essentially cancel culture because someone has said something that someone with a thin skin has got hot under the collar. Brining this here has created so much more pointless dramah than TRM’s rather mild comment warrants. Still, you obviously want your pound of flesh, and I guess stirring the pot with faux outrage is likely to get you your goal, but it’s not a positive step for the project, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't just a one-off from TRM, this has been going on for nearly 20 years. We only tolerate it because he's WP:UNBLOCKABLE -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only time I see UNBLOCKABLE being used is when people are desperate to get someone blocked, and it’s always nonsense. It’s a buzzword that gets thrown about when people question the proposed step, as if it’s a magic word that should mean an auto block. No-one on the project in unblockable. No-one. You opened this thread about a largely nothing comment that doesn’t breach civil, but you still keep pushing for a punitive block. You want to get a 20-year editor blocked, basing it on this rather mild comment is the wrong way to go, but I doubt that’ll stop the crusade against him. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose He did have a point in that ITN discussion. I don't think the mild rudeness is ban-worthy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * .... it's not mild rudeness, it's extremely offensive and disruptive. Would it be appropriate for someone to say those exact words about any other country? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose mostly per Masem who describes the situation better than I could have. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I understand the arguments coming from the oppose !voters, however we are talking about a very experienced, veteran editor who has repeatedly made uncivil comments. TRM has been given many chances by the community, and I think it's time for something to finally happen. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - honestly, the fact that an uncontroversial site ban isn't feasible for someone who makes these sorts of comments is an indictment on everyone who voted oppose, and the project as a whole. None of you should ever be shocked about the idea that this site is unwelcoming when you let behavior like this slide. At least a topic ban is something that demonstrates that negative behavior has consequences. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per JML1148, something more concrete needs to happen to ensure civility. This is one way to restart this process.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I am new to ITN and wiki as a whole but TRM has been an unpleasant and uncivil voice numerous times in my own experiance. He has violated WP:Civil and WP:Soap multiple times and he rarely adds things of value to the discussion. I respect his past contributions to ITN and Wikipedia as a whole but his actions are unacceptable and must be punished.
 * Aure entuluva (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t use blocks as punishment. Unfortunately a few people here seem to have forgotten that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why don't we just make every block indefinite? Blocks aren't punitive but they are used to correct someone's behavior. TRM is the way he is because he thinks he's untouchable and no one will block him if needed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - shootings and minimum deaths are a contentious topic at ITN. TRM occasionally posts something uncivil, but this does not call for a TBAN (and the proposal of a SBAN is ludicrous). A wider analysis of death counts needs to be done, or we could theoretically bring someone to ANI over this every other month. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the problem: it isn't occassional. It's the majority of his edits. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose One would have thought that editors who spend most of their lives dodging hails of bullets and ensuring their kids know how to best evade a crazed shooter would be less likely to be offended by a few words than the rest of us snowflakes. But less satirically, for a discussion that claims to be concerned about TRM's incvility, there are certainly a number of comments that border on NPA above themselves. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ... It's honestly disappointing to see an admin say that. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. However, my first sentence was not a serious one. My second one certainly was. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Isnt the fact that we know TRM’s view on America, Americans, gun violence, the US constitution, the Republican Party, the random Wikipedians who are American, is that not evidence of repeated and sustained violations of SOAP? I don’t give a half a fuck what TRM thinks about basically anything, and SOAP means I should not have to be burdened with that knowledge. If y’all could win a war maybe we would still have to care what some Brit thinks, but thankfully that time has come and passed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If we were going to apply SOAP to TRM commenting in that fashion on ITNC items about gun shootings in the US (where they at least are relevant), then we'd need to be doing that across the board on numerous other editors on highly controversial/political topics (eg like on Trump, etc.). I've seen much stronger statements of soapboxing in those areas which I recognize are pretty much unactionable but which do not help towards "improving the article". M asem (t) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy hypocrisy Batman! Your last sentence is effectively exactly the same as the one that you want TRM to be banned from ITN for (and you've just proved my point exactly). Congratulations! Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * that was on purpose, given your first sentence ;) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bah! Mine was funnier. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was a middle school student in Connecticut when Sandy Hook happened. I participated in a March for Our Lives demonstration at the state capital in Hartford. I am usually coy about my political beliefs, but I am personally appalled at the mass shootings that frequently happen in my country, and pissed that one political party refuses to do anything about it. And yet, I was able to state this without adding in personal attacks or accusing everyone in a country of not caring. There are many of us who are upset with the current situation. Don't try and lecture me about how gun violence is a problem, because I have personally lived with the fear every day that my school could be next.
 * TRM's comments are little more than trolling, and he has shown he has no interest in constructively participating at ITN anymore. So why are people acting like it isn't a problem, exactly? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite your comment is in bad taste, satire or no. It ought to be possible to justify TRM's conduct without restoring to "well, other people are rude" or "those wacky Americans who live in a free-fire zone, amirite?", yet here we are. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And it ought to be possible to conduct such discussions at ANI without 101 shades of personal attacks and nonsense, but this extended thread has shown that doesn’t seem to be possible either – from both sides of the debate. Many of the comments make TRM’s comments pale into utter insignificance. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first two comments defending TRM in this discussion were later struck for incivility/personal attacks. I'm afraid that set the tone for what followed. I've read much of this thread and I disagree with Many of the comments make TRM’s comments pale into utter insignificance; please give specific examples, particularly given TRM's documented harassment of SandyGeorgia. Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they didn’t set the tone: ANI has been turning into an incivility fest for a number of years, and this thread is just another example. (Don’t try and point the finger at one side of the discussion only: both sides have been at fault throughout, as most people are able to acknowledge, of they put the axe-grinding to one side for a minute). No, I won’t give examples: you are entirely able to spot them yourself if you out your mind to it. You may not want to see the comments from both sides, but they are rather obviously there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment : I see a lot of discussion and assertions above about what portion of TRM's comments are unhelpful, but no actual data. I've performed a brief census of the most recent 50 edits of TRM and checked for civility issues, as well as the types of content. It seems to me that 14% of TRM's most recent edits have contained incivility. Only 8% of their edits at ITN are uncivil, while 25% of their talk page posts have had some incivility. Despite mass shootings and Americans being the impetus for this ANI, only 6% of his comments on mass shootings and 10% of his comments on Americans appear to violate WP:CIVIL. These results are summarized, and the raw data presented, in my sandbox.
 * I have no comment on what an acceptable threshold of uncivil comments is. However, I've heard it said above that "the majority" of TRM's comments are uncivil, which appears to be an exaggeration. I also note that half of all of TRM's contributions in the past 50 edits have been to ITN. Whether a topic ban would cause TRM to withdraw from the project entirely, or find a new area in which to contribute, will not speculate. I hope this data is useful to the community to help them come to a consensus on this issue. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * just an FYI. At the time you made this post, the very next post right under it (at, and posted a day and a half before yours) contained those statistics (although you and SamX arrived at different conclusions). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I opposed the site ban as overkill. Something in between like this is needed to have it "sink in" take this seriously.  Some other "in between" measure  would also be good. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support TRM at ITN is usually a bit POINT-y, ITN isn't exactly the best place to discuss American gun policy. Plus, an editor making comments like TRM usually makes about the US about Somalia or Afghanistan (in the context of terrorist attacks) would usually be insta-banned. A SBAN seems like overkill atm, though. AryKun (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a minimum measure. If an editor here for 18 months were active primarily for soapboxing and polemics at ITN (and borderline harassment toward another editor), they'd be indeffed as NOTHERE in short order. An editor here 18 years should, apparently, be immune to any consequences in the eyes of many despite admitting he is no longer contributing. While news items may involve politics, it doesn't seem that ITN is intended to be a political discussion forum, and routinely using it as such is clear disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as an uninvolved editor. I don't spend a lot of time on ITN but the comments linked are totally beyond the pale. Loki (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I think mass shootings in the US take too much place on ITN (especially as a non-American), but those comments are pushing the envelope way too far.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 21:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support. And frankly, I almost certainly would have supported a siteban at this juncture: TRM's incessant issues with civility over the years are a matter of substantial record, having been brought here to ANI in particular possibly as many times as any editor in the history of the project who has not themeselves been site-banned. There is no credible argument that he has not been made aware of community (and administrative) perspectives on this over the course of numerous formal closes saying as much and a high number of sanctions based on this conduct.  Putting aside that issue (and whether the perenial defense against this type of behaviour, that civility is too subjective to enforce, is valid--personally I think it's a nonsense argument under policy, but not a vital issue here in any event), this comes down a cost-benefit analysis: whether your think his comments are just him calling a spade for a spade or outright hatespeech, there can be little doubt that the disruption outweighs the utility he brings to certain spaces in particular.


 * And even amongst those spaces, ITN stands out: TRM's WP:BATTLEGROUND there had been brough to this space so many times, I was well familiar with it before the first time I even set an editorial foot at ITN. In the years since, I've still rarely edited there, and usually only in response to an RfC, but I've nevertheless gotten to witness the conduct first hand. He very much injects irrelvant bite and tendentiousness into the process, as well as a fair bit of WP:FORUM-like speculation which simply doesn't have any editorial value, even if you put aside the fact that it frequently (and clearly intentionally) includes offensive, bigoted, and nationally chauvanistic commentary against people of certain demographics and backgrounds. This should not be even a close call, and I regret the siteban discussion was closed (in good faith, but argubaly prematurely), because, as tarnished as WP:CIV has become over the last decade owing to inconsistent enforcement, we surely need to be meeting at least some basic standards, and a lack of any action here is tantamont to just acknowledging that some editors are simply ban-proof, so long as they have a well cultivated enough base of support--short of an office action, which as we all know, the community loses it's head over.  If we're going to insist that we can handle such community members without the imposition of an overly top-down process, there's a minimum threshold we need to be meeting with regard to walking that walk. <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> 06:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I fully agree that TRM's tone is abrasive at times, and I left a message regarding his issues with SandyGeorgia, which I hope he's listened to. But the complaint about ITN in particular seems to be a huge storm in a teacup. Making remarks about an entire nation isn't a personal attack, it's just a worldview, irrespective of whether that view is justified or not. I'm from the UK and I can assure you that I'd never take offence at some generalist remark about Britain or British people, if it didn't relate to me personally. And ITN is a well-known hotbed of dispute and bickering due to the vague mature of its guidelines, TRM is far from the most hostile person there. Overall, aside from the Sandy issue, which Sandy has never herself chosen to bring to ANI, TRM has been much more mellow and collaborative in the past couple of years. So handing out what looks like mainly a punishment to a largely inactive editor, principally for past indiscretion (which has already been handled by Arbitration and blocks anyway), seems unfair IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Making remarks about an entire nation isn't a personal attack, it's just a worldview, irrespective of whether that view is justified or not." I thought that aspect over, from a few different pragmatic and policy angles, and my take is that it really doesn't matter whether what he said can be technically described as a PA. It's bigoted, polemic screed and highly WP:disruptive if absolutely nothing else.  And as others have noted, it also at a minimum violates WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP.  And whatever the alphabet soup, it just violates the spirit of numerous community principles concerning keeping this not just a welcoming place for people of all extractions, but also a rational one based on our processes, not small-minded rants loaded with invective and hostility.  But aside from whether or not this consitutes any kind of banable offense by virtue of TRM's intentional choices, it simply raises the question of whether he can meet WP:CIR if he still does not understand (or will not accept) what is and is not a valid argument for a given issue, and what is clearly unuseful and unacceptable bombast.


 * While choosing not to discuss my own origin as a matter of habit here, I will say I've lived in both counrties, and elsewhere in the anglophone world, for whatever that matters, and I'd find TRM's national culture war nonsense embarassing on either side of the Atlantic. And it's certainly not a good look for this project from any angle.  <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> 11:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, since Amakuru raised it, one of the reasons I did not bring it to ANI (and indeed, have not !voted on the proposals), is that I do not want to see the attacks on me used to turn other content review processes (GA, FA, URFA) into an ITN or DYK or ERRORS or MAINPAGE scenario (where there was another dispute over a decade ago involving TRM), by engaging participants in a protracted dispute or in an arbcase. I saw how little the Med Arbcase did to address the core problems or restore my main area of editing; the process itself is destructive. I'd like to see this end here at ANI, just as I hoped the incident with the attacks on me would end with TRM listening to his wiser friends. I had hoped that a broader sanction, addressing the core problem but short of a site ban, would forestall the arbcase that Robert McClenon has pledged to bring.   I am a NorthAmerican who not only has a passport, but has lived for extended periods in four very different countries and six different cultures. Each had different expressions of violence and hatred and deplorable things of one gut-wrenching horrific kind or another.  I've had a person die at my feet. I've hid in my home as thousands of people died in one day of violence-- three different times in two different countries (well, one of those three times resulted in hundreds, not thousands, of deaths in one day).  I hid in my home in a different country as the house next door was blown to bits.  I hid in my home in a third country while businesses were closed and school was cancelled as drunken soccer fans from another country rampaged a city during a World Cup. I've witnessed a brutal beating of a child. I've witnessed murder. I've cowered in my car with bullets flying overhead, and witnessed a political kidnapping at the point of what looked to my untrained eye like an AK-47, and feared I was next because the perpetrator knew I was a witness; that was almost 40 years ago, and none of this gun violence I experienced was in the US.  Here at home, I was very close to ground zero at 9/11, and experienced a murder via knifing.  Spreading hatred about evil is reprehensible because evil is not solved with more evil.   I never understood the forceful way the WMF installed their Universal Code of Conduct until now.  I wish the community to solve this lest they (WMF) feel entitled to. I still consider it encouraging that TRM at least removed the attacks on me from his talk page at Amakuru's encouragement; it shows he can listen if people close to him will just speak up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I dont usually like to vote on the bans of people I have had issues with, but seeing as how the TRM Booster Club is out in full force why not. To those of you pretending like this is an occasional issue, look at literally any nomination about a mass shooting in America to find the TRM providing us with his “worldview” (we would normally call that xenophobia if we were being honest with one another). And to the people pretending like the comment that finally brought us here is an aberration explain this gem of a comment. Or explain the relevance of mass shootings in the United States to the topic of a domestic violence story from Japan. How exactly was that remotely relevant? It was trolling, it was soapboxing, and that it continues unabated is the fault of said boosters. That he continues to violate basic policies is the fault of the people who have excused his bullshit because he wrote some nice articles. Well, he isnt even doing that, so even that redeeming trait is no more. What we are left with is somebody who is unwilling or unable to even pretend to act like anything other than a child who is throwing a tantrum. Well, since I’m apparently one of the few Americans with a passport, when I see a child throwing a tantrum on a plane I ask to be moved away from them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 10:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am in no club, rarely even reading ANI, let alone comment, and on ITN I often comment but mostly for RD. I agree with Amakuru and SchroCat, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting read User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The simple test here is "Is ITN made better or worse by TRM being involved?" and the answer is that while ITN is pretty bad in general, TRM has done his part to make it that much worse. The soapboxing and using WP as a forum does nothing to improve Wikipedia. I agree with others a siteban is beyond warranted after all these years, but this is better than nothing.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has been an intractable problem for years. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Basically per SnowRise. And my own interactions with TRM also. I would also support a stronger sanction. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There is nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said, just adding my !vote to give weight to the consensus. TBAN seems entirely appropriate given the behavior and history. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I could be convinced to switch to oppose if one of TRM's defenders presented a link, just one single link, to anything he's done at ITN this year that was a clear net positive. All I want is one example of how he makes ITN substantially better so I could understand why others seem to believe that the space would suffer if he were banned from it. The best I've found are a few minor remarks, and those are outnumbered by several blatant violations of the civility policy. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Siteban of The Rambling Man
Since there seems to be support for a siteban for TRM, I've reviewed every edit made by TRM since January 1st this year. It was rough. Since the start of the year, TRM's contributions to mainspace have been negligible. Instead, he's been casting aspersions when people supported removing The Boat Race from ITN, making snide remarks about Americans and mass shootings , and complaining that SandyGeorgia and other Americans drove him off the project without citing specific incidents or behaviors (Disclosure: I'm an American). To put this into perspective, I've linked to 23 diffs here, out of the 62 edits he's made since the start of the year. To me, this is a clear indication that he's been a net negative on this site for the past several months, to say nothing of the extensive previous history of disruption. In light of this, I'm putting this up for a straw poll.
 * Support as proposer. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 06:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a long and sad history just in the past year alone. It seems like he's retired from doing productive things on this project to just picking fights with Americans. Honestly it's gotten so bad that whenever I see a post or comment by him on ITN, I know it's going to be drama. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If there’s a consensus that the editor mistreats other editors, then the farthest we should go is administer a ban from editing talk pages so that the editor cannot interact with others. I don’t see a reason why a prolific editor with no history of disruptive editing in the main namespace should be prevented to edit articles. In that sense, the strictest sanction should be a WP:PBAN, not a WP:SBAN, which is a terrible proposal and way overkill. Additionally, given that the longest block of the editor was one month when the arbitration was enforced back in 2017, it’s too much to go with an indefinite block/ban of any kind. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be very impractical, since he would eventually get into a dispute. Also, he's only made 5 mainspace edits this entire year, and one of them was just reverting vandalism. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while the project would benefit from TRM taking a step back from dealing with Americans, it would be even greater to have TRM return to other areas (we had pleasant and productive interactions at GA reviews and at FAC). Should any bans be necessary, they should be narrow and focused (I think there was previously a ban from DYK or ERRORS or something where TRM was allowed to point out errors on a separate page, and that sanction seems to have worked well). —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are we bending over backwards for him? There's no one else on the project who would get this type of deference. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (Citation needed). Anyone with a dozen FAs and hundreds of reviews gets a lot of deference. You can argue that they shouldn't, but there is nothing exceptional about taking prior contributions into account when deciding what to do about an editor. —Kusma (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kusma it makes sense to grant an FA creator leeway when it comes to content disputes. I don't understand granting them leeway when it comes to attacking other editors, especially when those attacks have no obvious connection to content creation. What's the limiting principle here? He's not even creating content at this point: . The DYK/ERRORS restrictions were effective only to the point that it moved his bad behavior toward other editors elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am opposing a (probably indefinite) siteban decided at ANI, my least favourite place for constructively dealing with problematic editors. That does not mean I would oppose any and all sanctions: I do seriously wish for a way to have good TRM without bad TRM. I don't know what the limit is, but I oppose us kicking out TRM without a slow and deliberative process like an Arbcom case. —Kusma (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While I understand your position, I don't accept the premise that there's a way to constructively [deal] with problematic editors when the editor in question doesn't accept that there's a problem with their conduct. (To be fair, there are people in this thread who don't accept that either.) The most constructive solution is separation from the project, voluntary or otherwise. If it takes a third arbitration case (at least, he figured in Date Delinking, way back in 2009), then so be it, and it'll just as indefinite. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - hugely over the top, not the way we (first) deal with civility issues. There might be a case for a more localised topic ban, but a full site ban is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not how we (first) deal with civility issues. It's what we do when we've tried everything else.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. We've tried everything else, including 3 (three) trips to Arbcom.  Arbcom even tried a direct instruction not to demean or belittle people.  Nothing's worked and he's getting worse.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - None of the diffs provided as evidence, convince me that a siteban is necessary.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">(talk)</b> 10:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I want to remind everyone that the Arbitration Committee tried a more tailored approach in 2016, back when TRM was a more productive mainspace editor. It had no effect on his behavior, and enforcement failed because then, as now, some editors were prepared to look the other way. I'm not sure how you look at his contributions since January, especially his treatment of SandyGeorgia, and shrug. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I still don’t see a single compelling argument in favour of a WP:SBAN and why is it better than a localised ban on namespaces where editors interact with each other. While he’s substantially decreased his activity in the main namespace, not only there are no signs of disruptive editing whatsoever, but he still makes productive edits (e.g. reverting vandalism).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's practical to ban someone from every namespace except the article space. Suppose there's an editing dispute? They happen between good-faith editors. We have to allow him the talk page. He's going to have to talk to another editor at some point. Surely the price of a vandalism revert isn't so high as all that. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is a proposal to administer an "indefinite" site ban, he should be allowed access to his own talk page in order to have the possibility to file an appeal in the future, and potential editing disputes could be discussed there. Otherwise, it'd practically be an "infinite" site ban.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While unanswered posts casting aspersions at me remain on his talk page, after my persistent efforts to encourage dialogue? The issues over the years have just moved from one venue to another. See my alternate suggestion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Kusma. There goes the bathwater and, oops!, the baby too. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello
 * Oppose - I've looked at every diff presented here and I see nothing wrong with any of them. Only thing I support is Rockstone and his buddy SamX being indeffed. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For what, exactly? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For being bloody snowflakes?. For looking for reasons to be offended, For showing sheer incompetence. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone being offended by a personal attack is not a reason to indef the person who was offended. There are clear issues, and they should be stopped. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs provided, I just see people being offended for the sake of being offended. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous argument and it reflects badly on you. XAM2175  <i style="color:darkslategrey">(T)</i> 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose What a disgusting and shameful process. I concur with all above oppose !votes. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Classic "attack the process" rationale when no other exists. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There are several clear examples presented that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that TRM has continually shown incivility and contempt for other editors. So far the only defense that opposing editors have been able to conjure up is either cruel indifference or "he's productive so we should put up with it." One editor even goes as far to suggest a silly WP:BOOMERANG. I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other. We have guidelines for civility for a reason. Those who wish to ignore them should be admonished as well. Until TRM proves he actually is sorry for his actions he should no longer have the privilege to participate in this project. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose Terrible, out of line behavior, bad rationales given for it,  and apparently not contributing but a site ban is overkill.   Some alternate is needed.  Maybe something like a 3 month block to see if that wakes them up and escalate to a site ban later if that fails. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut move and out of all proportion. As to comments like “I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other”, that disgusting little attack comment is more problematic than TRM’s original one and worthy of admin action. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, what is disgusting is how outright personal attacks and borderline hate speech is tolerated to the point of attacking those who speak up about it, just because someone wrote a few FAs &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I think such hyperbolic reaction is misplaced. “Hate speech”? Nah. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be honest here, if these comments were about Pakistanis or Iranians this guy would already be halfway out the door. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow... That’s a staggering leap. Straight to suggestions of racism just to block another editor? That’s a really low tactic. Wow... Just wow. SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anyone is racist, I'm saying that if he was saying Pakistanis were a pain to deal with instead of saying that about Americans we would be done here. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As he hasn’t mentioned Pakistanis or Iranians, why did you bring them up? It’s a straw man argument that has no basis or relevance here except to try and introduce a quasi-racist angle to the situation. Maybe drop the hypotheticals and false arguments and stick to what has been said. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can stick to the clear anti-American comments and rampant personal attacks that have been said. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Reluctant oppose per North8000. Would prefer a 3-month block.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, S Marshall sums it up well. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support These issues should not be overlooked just because he made a bunch of FAs. There is a serious issue here, and he isn't even making productive changes anymore. Alternatively, we could bring this to ArbCom and see what they have to say about it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ”he isn't even making productive changes anymore”: people take breaks and have time away. You seem to be suggesting we should be blocking him partly because he is having a break. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not having time away though. He is still editing, but not in mainspace. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So? ‘Time away’ doesn’t just mean absence from the project completely, it can mean major down time or an absence from article development. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm losing my patience with this thread. I think we should probably just close it and open an ArbCom case, because this isn't going anywhere. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I didn't think I needed to repeat myself, but this is a pile on. As the other fella said, 'I smell the blood of les tricoteuses'. And what weight, precisely, to be given to the non-arguments of a three-month-old account, calling yet ever more vociferously for blocks, bans and Arbcom—?! Very little, I assume, since they have resorted to bludgeoning the opposition already. I also, for the record, oppose 's proposed three-month block as being punitive; no offence, but it smacks—especially in the case where greater sanctions may not pass—of wanting any result rather than none, anything being better than nothing...  SN54129  15:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly fine if this goes against my opinion, or if it goes to ArbCom and they say nothing is wrong, but I find this thread to be an embarrassment to the site and discounting my opinion because of account age is not helping. I believe that we should be able to respectfully disagree without this much conflict, but for some reason we cannot. I give you full permission to trout me if you see fit, but I am not the only one who needs it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with my participation, so be it. I will attempt to leave this thread. But please do not discount me solely because of my account age. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A complete overreaction. We have an editor who has lost his enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia but still shows up occasionally at ITN to state, in a somewhat inflammatory way, his disgust with the lack of gun control in the US. That's no way near worthy of a site ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose an indef site ban. I don't think a site ban is necessary given the magnitude of the diffs presented above. A TBAN? Yes. But a siteban? No, that would be too extreme based on those comments imo. I would support a temporary site ban for 3 months, though, as I agree his overall contributions appear to have been a net negative on the project in the past 3-4 months. sanctions like this should be preventative, and serve to show TRM how his behavior is considered inappropriate by the community. I don't think an indef would serve this function, and seems more punitive in motivation. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kusma and Pawnkingthree. Neither an indefinite site ban nor a time-limited one is warranted, in my opinion. DanCherek (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Warning notice
I'm following up Isabelle Belato's warning above.

So to be clear, consider this a warning: If the incivility and personal attacks continue - and I mean by anyone - I, or any other uninvolved admin, may start handing out blocks or whatever other appropriate sanctions to stop the disruption. - jc37 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We're moving forward from the timestamp of the warning. Though of course, I would encourage everyone who thinks that perhaps their coments have gone too far, to voluntarily strike them (and no, don't strike someone else's comments). Just please dial it down. - jc37 19:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To reiterate - Please do not strike out or remove others' comments. At this point, I think it's fair to say, that that is more likely to add more heat than light. Everyone is responsible for their own comments and actions. - jc37 00:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you ; please remove this for a start, which is little more than trolling a respected editor; they are making a personal remark in response to a polite and sensible comment. Thanks!  SN54129  19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it’s not trolling to point out that an editor claiming others are being uncivil (and arguing we should look the way other when it comes to incivilty) has a lengthy block log in part because of civility concerns. He’s not the only one of TRM’s defenders with one. 2601:196:4600:5BF0:718C:F34C:6CBF:92F6 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored this comment after all three of you edit-warred to remove it without any policy-based reason. The comment isn't great, and my restoration of it is not an endorsement of its sentiment, but it is not so egregious that it needed to be removed, and especially should not have been removed by the subject of the comment. Further disruption of this thread will result in partial blocks from AN/I or sitewide blocks as appropriate. And Liliana, I've warned you for rollback misuse in the past. This is your final warning. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That claim that these reverts were done "without any policy-based reason"? It's, uh, foreboding. To my mind, and I'm saying this 100% sincerely, you could only come to such a conclusion because you either missed the explanation from User:SchroCat, "rv troll (or at least a logged out quacking duck)," or you read it and deduced SchroCat was...lying? Trying to do harm some other way? I have no idea. As for me, I read the anonymous editor's fiery, extremely suspicious message, considered SchroCat's explanation for removing it, noted that the anonymous editor restored without explanation, and concluded SchroCat's revert was right and worthy of being reinforced. (And yes, I really and truly did all of that in the span of two minutes.)
 * If editor A makes an edit, editor B reverts with a worthwhile explanation, and editor A restores their edit without addressing editor B's concern or giving any explanation at all, I'm going to revert again per WP:ENGAGE every time and I'm not likely to explain myself because hey, editor A couldn't be bothered. Accordingly, I truly believe that I'm doing harm to the website by not getting rid of that message yet again. That means, Tamzin, your edit is standing not because it's right but because you're an administrator. Is that fair? Because of course you believe you're right but what recourse does anyone have if you ever make an edit that's wrong and accompany it with a threat like this? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 00:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, the length of a block log has nothing to do with "pot meet kettle" behavior - if anything, it might mean someone is well placed to talk about bad behavior (something something learning from their errors).  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 22:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , That is utter nonsense. It’s trolling nonsense, nothing more. It’s not constructive, unhelpful and does nothing but to wind up a user (me) who is not a subject of a thread, and has not overstepped any lines of civility in any comment. You should take on board that three editors considered this nothing but trouble-making, nothing else. You are out of line in reinstating a personal attack, and I consider that as you have reinstated it, you are now making a personal attack on me. It’s a little shameful that an admin is reinstating it, and I am deeply disappointed that you think that rampant incivility has a place at ANI. You need to reconsider your inappropriate action here.To claim it was done “without any policy-based reason” is untrue, and I am surprised an admin does not know or understand basic policies and guidelines such as WP:TPO, which rather clearly states “Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism”. As you have reposted disputed material, you are now taking ownership of that material, which leaves you making inappropriate personal attacks. I think you need to consider your position and remove the personal attack you have now reinstated against the judgement of three other editors.I also reject your description of my edit was “edit warring”: I made one revert. That is not edit warring, as you should know. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, Tamzin is right about my rollback misuse. But the one message I reverted did border on personal attacks. This specific message seems more reasonable, hence why I had initially neglected to revert it and wanted to reply to it before it was removed.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 23:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Send to ArbCom
ArbCom has been established: I have been saying for several years that ArbCom should occasionally be the final authority about the conduct of individual users, when the community is unable to resolve those issues because the community is divided. The community is obviously divided as to whether to topic-ban The Rambling Man from In the News, and this dispute has been going on for years.

ArbCom has procedures which reduce the excessive drama in complaints about users, such as requiring that editors comment in their own sections, and a formal evidentiary process followed by a distinct formal decision process. ArbCom also acts by majority, rather than by the elusive pursuit of rough consensus, and, as an elected body, has a reasonable basis for acting by majority.

The conduct of The Rambling Man has already been considered by ArbCom; it has already, at least once, been recognized that the community was not dealing effectively with this user (and another user). The community has not been able to resolve the issue of the incivility of this user, and ArbCom is for disputes that the community is not resolving.

By the way, as an American, I agree with The Rambling Man's comments about the stupid glorification of guns resulting in excessive gun violence that is seen nowhere else in the developed world. But the First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply to privately owned servers, such as those that Wikipedia is on.

This dispute has been doing on for years, and is about to eat a privately owned server. The ArbCom should be asked to hear it, and the ArbCom should hear it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Premature while (above) is ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This whole situation is messy, but a consensus is rising that TRM should be tbaned from itn and a siteban is not warranted. I don't think this case requires arbcom. Carpimaps talk to me! 16:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bagumba and Carpimaps (and this, which led to the removal of aspersions from TRM's talk could be a positive sign.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a positive sign. Thank you TRM, I appreciate you making those edits to your user page and talk page; really! -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've come to the conclusion that Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man 2, and all of the bad blood and time sinks associated with it, will likely have to exist some day. I do hope that the members of Arbcom are aware of this ANI discussion and have given some thought to the classic "overlooking incivility from established editors" issue, and the point at which that becomes disruptive in its own right. Honestly, I'm just about frustrated enough to support sanctions across the board for everyone in this discussion that's engaged uncivilly or engaged in any of the behaviors listed at WP:HID. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If arbcom is required the vitriol being launched by some of those turning up here to defend TRM should be an issue as well. ANI isn’t exempt from our civility rules. 2601:196:4600:5BF0:718C:F34C:6CBF:92F6 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll just ignore comments like "I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other" from TBAN supporters and we'll just lay blame/focus on the Opposers. I wish people like you would grow a pair and say that shit from your own account instead of being a coward. Utterly fucking ridiculous comment. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that if this goes to ArbCom, sanctions for bad behavior must be handed out to both sides. For example, it wouldn't be fair for ArbCom to block Nemov for saying that if they didn't also block you for denigrating the horror of mass shootings in America by mockingly calling them "an everyday thing" and saying people who speak up against insults like that are "Snowflakes being snowflakes". <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 00:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware my initial !vote hasn't helped and you could argue "I'm bad as the rest" but my point was there's been incivility from both sides here not just the Opposers. If he stated such I would've actually agreed. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to strike the sexist prose about "growing a pair"? Women are allowed to edit here. No particular genitals required. Very Average Editor (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In what world is there not consensus for the ITN ban and why is this closed when it is still getting comments??? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

, I try to make it a policy to show administrative discretion a fair amount of respect, so I've always avoided being the person to directly question a close here at ANI, but... I count 28 !votes pretty clearly in support of a topic ban, and 15 in opposition. And ongoing discussion. Do you have a high degree of confidence that your close reflects standing community consensus? Because while I am certain this was not an effort at a supervote, I must tell you, to me, it feels like the community's clear will on this matter is being set to the side. <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> 11:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As people have objected to the closure as "no consensus", I am re-opening the discussion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)