Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Muhsin97233

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) have been reverted, as seen here [6][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [7] [8] [9] [10]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [11][12][13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19][20][21]; [22]; [23]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [24][25].

Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if Muhsin97233 doesn't address this report, I think the wp:nothere POV pushing is clear. A topic-ban would help stop wasting more time with this in the future. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Various complaints about WikiEditor1234567123

I would like to report suspicious activity coming from this account @WikiEditor1234567123:. 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 @Targimhoï:, @Niyskho: @MrMalaga: and @Malhuyataza: 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 @WikiEditor1234567123: 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.

• 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 @Malhuyataza: of @MrMalaga: 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, @Blasusususu: and @Iask1:. 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.

More:

• 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

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi. Ivanvector 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? @Materialscientist:, @Liz:, @Maile66: 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'll 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)

User:Serial Number 54129 casting aspersions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Serial Number 54129 made a false accusation about me, referring to a years-old discussion, off-topic in a discussion that they didn’t otherwise participate in.[26] I challenged it and they “apologized” with another false accusation (yes, things were said in the old, closed discussion, but not what Serial Number 54129 asserted).[27] They also tried to canvas an editor they thought might help pile on.[28]

I also directly asked them to strike,[29] but they ignored and archived my comment.[30]

Although two uninvolved editors did criticize the inappropriate comm ents,[31][32] I consider the false accusations to be misleading and WP:ASPERSIONS, and believe it’s reasonable to ask for the entire comment to be stricken or deleted, either by Serial Number 54129 or by an uninvolved admin.

Thanks.  —Michael Z. 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User notified of this request.[33]  —Michael Z. 17:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oh for fuck sake, you're taking this to ANI? Move on. EEng 20:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  EEng, there are nicer ways to say that. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  But it's warranted. This filing is ridiculous EvergreenFir (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  So editors can just ignore WP:CIVIL, post any shit they want, go about their way, and their targets deserve to get some more profane abuse from administrators? Looking forward to talk pages of the future. Not what one expects, but good to know. Thank you, for fuck’s sake. —Michael Z. 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Mzajac The best thing to do in that case is to ignore it and try and de-escalate the situation. One way of doing it is to work out why the editor is being uncivil, take a step back and address that issue on its own merits. Indeed, as WP:CIVIL advises us, "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  How can I determine why they attacked me? They escalated by posting further lies, then refused to respond there, on their talk page, or here. How do I “de-escalate” except by asking uninvolved admins to disapprove of the behaviour with a concrete response, instead of telling me how I can be better? How do I continue editing Wikipedia knowing that admins will never do anything to prevent slander about me from accumulating permanently on discussion pages? I came to ANI instead of snapping back.

  If ANI is a waste of time, what can I do except delete the slanderous comment myself or loudly advertise its nature on the talk page where it was committed? Since admins here have confirmed my accusation, but refused to use their authority to do anything about it except express sympathy, chide me, and swear at me, I suppose I can escalate to WP:AE.  —Michael Z. 16:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the linked discussion; not familiar with all of the dramatis personae here, so I am sure there are all kinds of illustrious explanations for why this was actually an extremely cool and normal thing to say, but it seems somewhat unwarranted and uncollegial to me. jp×g 09:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no memory of ever interacting with Serial Number 54129 before this personal attack.  —Michael Z. 13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you've learned your mistake, and won't interact with them again... --Jayron32 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Jayron, I'm not sure what you mean with this remark. Are you suggesting anyone who interacts with SN makes a mistake? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you're intending for a message similar to Courcelles below, chiding Michael for something, but as written this seems open to misinterpretation. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Por que no los dos? What I was saying was, when there is an negative interaction (regardless of who is at fault), disengaging and letting the matter drop is generally a useful way to proceed. --Jayron32 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

when there is an negative interaction

I take issue with this assessment, because it appears there was no interaction before SerialNo lashed out with accusations, and then merely faux-apologized with more accusations. Dropping the matter seems like poor advice for a direct personal attack out of nowhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand what that means. You mean when they conduct another unprovoked personal attack against me I should suck it up and take it silently? Ignore false accusations and let them accumulate for posterity? There’s no other way to interpret that, given the facts. —Michael Z. 23:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I sympathize with you, and I'm disappointed by the responses of several editors above who really should know better. Unless I'm missing something, there was no good reason for SN54129 to make a personal comment about you in the first place, and the 'apology' merely replaced one unsubstantiated accusation with another. So yeah, the so-called apology was nothing of the sort. Ritchie's suggestion to try and work out why someone is being uncivil is good advice in many cases, but not here since the personal attack appears to have been unprompted. That said, although you would have been wiser to file this complaint at that time rather than waiting a week, I doubt anything would have happened. While those comments are quite rude and well below what I would expect from SN54129, they aren't bad enough to warrant sanctions. But while there was nothing much for this board to do, the lack of empathy displayed above is appalling. Not sure what else to tell you, though. Sometimes this board gets it wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I didn’t wait a week. I waited until it was clear that Serial Number 54129 refused to respond on their talk page and then posted here when I was able.

This board could strike or remove the slanderous comment. That’s all I asked for.  —Michael Z. 02:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to make clear, SN was clearly and unambiguously in the wrong here. They should not have done what they did, and there is no possible excuse that could be offered up that would make it okay. Having said that, sometimes the effort spent getting a pound of flesh is better spent doing something else. Retribution is not always worth the effort. --Jayron32 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history with a fresh pair of eyes, I see SN54129 made a remark that he realised was factually incorrect, and struck it. That seems to resolve the conduct dispute. Are there any further examples of them being continually disruptive and requiring administrator intervention? If not, I would suggest this is akin to a cumulonimbus in a tea urn. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I've had a drink with SN54129 in real life, though he is most definitely not a hanger-on of mine and is quite happy to criticise my actions if he feels it's necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

They struck the original completely false accusation, and then, along with a fake “apology,” added a different accusation that is harder to check, using words that appear in the old conversation referred to: “you were . . . accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor.” If that were a mistake, their refusal to take responsibility or take it back makes it a lie. You see: you’ve fallen for it. It’s fair to ask for it to be struck or deleted. —Michael Z. 14:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Related: someone created a new account wikidata:User:CerealNo (“serial no.”) and defaced my talk page there with extremely obscene imagery.[34] Whoever it was evidently wanted me to understand that their harassment is connected to this complaint. —Michael Z. 01:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, did you do that?  —Michael Z. 01:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You should probably strike that. It looks too much like an accusation, and frankly I can't imagine that SN54129 would do something so foolish. It's almost certainly a troll. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s not an accusation. Serial Number 54129 Should be notified and given the opportunity to respond. For all I know it’s somebody wanting to set them up or take advantage of this against me. Anyway you’re naïve to insist someone created an account and targeted me with “CerealNo,” shortly after Serial No conducted an unprovoked attack with falsehoods against me, by coincidence.

I’ve never been targeted with anything close to such hostile obscenity before, despite being in numerous disputes. It’s extremely upsetting. Your unsympathetic response is extremely inappropriate.  —Michael Z. 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The "CerealNo" account is painfully obvious trolling; there's a dozen different LTAs who might be responsible for that sort of thing. I echo Lepricavark's suggestion that you drop this and not feed the trolls. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That particular brand of vandalism was reported on Wikidata a few days ago; I understand it can be distressing, but it is definitely unrelated to whatever is going on in this thread. –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I was not insisting that it is a complete coincidence. Obviously whoever targeted your Wikidata page was inspired by this thread. Bearing in mind that this is a very high-visibility page, it is very, very likely that someone other than SN54129 (and it could theoretically be anyone in the world with access to Wikipedia) created that account for the purpose of further provoking you. It was not my intention to be unsympathetic, and I believe I made that very clear in my first comment. While I agree that SN's initial comment and pseudo-apology were both inappropriate, I don't think any admins on this board will strike them. My hope is that SN would be willing to self-reflect, admit that the comments were out of order, and strike them voluntarily. But given that they haven't engaged in this thread at all, I'm not holding my breath. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I am sorry to see you go through this. Let me with no qualifications mention that you shouldn't have been thrown such comments. And your filing of a complaint is perfectly okay, as it has the benefit of allowing other editors to understand the context and background of the issue and to keep an eye out so that in the future, if a similar issue arose, we can connect the dots. Having said that, if I may dare to speak on Sn's behalf, he is not a bad guy at all. I have interacted with him occasionally and found him to be extremely congenial and supportive (yes, he does snap sometimes, but that is sometimes... and he almost always comes around to ensuring he corrects his errors in spirit and in actions). An olive branch never hurts, and I would suggest extend to him the same this time... Like I said, he's not a bad guy at all, and would come around. That said, I will reiterate and hope that you don't go through such experiences again. Warmly, Lourdes 08:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You want me to respond to unprovoked harassment by extending “an olive branch”? What does that mean? Apologize to my “congenial and supportive” slanderer for not committing the offences they accused me of?

If coming to ANI is pointless and a waste of time and effort, maybe I should start harassing them, and perhaps you will lecture them about how great I am and how they can improve their behaviour.

Why are you even here?  —Michael Z. 15:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I hear you. I understand you are in a space where you feel slighted and are hitting back at anyone who stops short of asking for action against Sn (which is not going to happen at all). While I would advise you to not push everyone into the "either with me or against me" category, I would stop here and wish you the best with this thread. Lourdes 04:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a follow-up. Serial Number 54129 hasn't edited since this thread was created. I looked at the second accusation provided by Mzajac, noticed there were no diffs so I could check it for factual accuracy, and so left him a note saying that he should make sure he supplies diffs straightaway when making those sort of accusations. Specifically, the accusation is "You were not suspected of canvassing, I see on a re-read, but accused of harassment, bigotry and racism by one editor, allegations which seem to have been supported by another editor." Where were the accusations made, and which editors supported them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• this is getting similar to WP:UBA and stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: It's all in the very long discussion that SN did link to: Talk:Kyiv/Archive_7#Requested_move_1_July_2020. It looks like Michael got into an extended back-and-forth with the user SN pinged to the wikiproject talk page, and the bit about bigotry, racism, and harassment was set off by one of Michael's comments that "normalizing [a particular perspective] is a step towards bigotry and racism". He more or less insinuated that someone else was verging on bigotry and racism, which that person understandably didn't care for. The other person eventually asked if this was "some kind of harassment". It doesn't look like Michael was accused of bigotry and racism at all AFAICT, although his contributions there seemed to increase rather than reduce tensions, so I could understand remembering his comments unfavorably. Still, if you're going to try to poison the well twice, at least bring the real poison rather than slap a skull-and-crossbones sticker on some old vinegar. So it's inappropriate, but we're not looking at some pattern of egregious rhetoric, so "unblockables" isn't really relevant. We're in that large swath of territory where something is inappropriate but doesn't rise to the level of any real action being taken. Ideally SN would just pop in with a mea culpa or better evidence and this could be closed as resolved. Instead, it probably needs some sort of "please don't do that" or "reminder" about casting aspersions or content-not-contributors or some other stuff we all know SN is already aware of but performative tsk-tsking is the only option left, short of "just put up with it". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know that tsk-tsking is entirely performative; if this happens again in the future (ideally it won't), we can point to this thread and say you were asked to not do this, why is this becoming a pattern? Giving someone feedback that their conduct wasn't ideal is helpful to them, and to the project. Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Right. That's what I mean by performative (or maybe performative): rather than saying something that amounts to tsk-tsk in the thread, performing it for the record. Along the same lines, "reminder" in quotes for the kind of official reminder we see in closing statements and arbcom findings (not that I love our language games, but they serve a purpose). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  (Aside: I believe I merely exposed tensions by openly bringing attention to unacceptable speech that was present, taken for granted, and on the road to becoming routine in the subject area. I continue to do so and believe it has contributed to a less hostile environment.)  —Michael Z. 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out by Rhododendrites, it was in the link provided by SN54129, and indeed he was wrong in his accusation. OP was not accused of racism and bigotry, but of harassing other users with accusations of racism and bigotry (in particular Impru20, the user SN54129 pinged, but TaivoLinguist also felt himself similarly accused), and it was user Fyunck who supported Impru20 in defending himself of the accusations (diffs of the statements Impru20 found offensive: [35], [36]). Inasmuch as the accusation seems to be based on an erroneous, superficial reading of the discussion, I would suggest user Serial Number 54129 rectify his accusation or withdraw it.

I can understand the displeasure at being accused of racism, but I would have a lot more sympathy for OP had he not been freely accusing other people of national discrimination and overt anti-Ukrainian bias himself. While it is true that it's an old discussion, as he himself has stated here OP continue[s] to do so because he believe[s] it has contributed to a less hostile environment (!). We were here at ANI a few months ago with another report from him, that time against user Paul Siebert, accusing him of personal conspiracy theories about the non-existence of a nation precisely when such conspiracy theories are being used to incite genocide in Ukraine [37] based on a dishonestly edited quote, as noted by user Ealdgyth, who also pointed to the misleading framing of the quote alongside two (completely unrelated) news articles on Vladimir Putin. The report was closed by Salvio Giuliano as a [s]torm in a teapot. Weeks before this report, and also at ANI, OP had also accused me of writing offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine [38]. Trying to link fellow editors to Putin and accusing them of echoing statements inciting genocide is, I believe, a far graver aspersion, and I struggle to see how this "will dish it out but will not take it" attitude is conduct becoming an administrator, but it is not my place to question it. What I can assure you, however, is that there is no way in hell this contributed to a less hostile environment. I would like to repeat what Ealdgyth said in the diff linked above: If the editors in the topic area would try to dial DOWN the temperature rather than dial it up all the time, there might be some progress made. At this point, however, maybe it's jut impossible. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

“Misleading” and “dishonest” are your words, not @Ealdgyth’s. My quotation was neither, at least for anyone who understands how quoting with brackets and dots work, and who can follow an associated link to see the context. Please provide diffs to all the quotations you’ve used to accuse me, so I can respond adequately.

So you don’t like something I wrote in the past. Does that mean unprovoked attacks and lies about me should be tolerated and preserved on discussion pages or not?  —Michael Z. 00:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything, but all the relevant diffs are there, at least (to paraphrase you) for anyone who understands how a mouse works...

But my point is a far simpler one - your behaviour is a driver of conflict in the area, and not, as you say, a contribution to a less hostile environment. You fail to assume good faith and are constantly casting aspersions regarding other users in good standing, yet at the same time get worked up when you're on the receiving end of any such aspersion. I was very clear in stating that SN54129 should either rectify or withdraw his accusation, but I think you would do well to look at your own behaviour in the area. Ostalgia (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, now I see this is about previous discussions between me and you. I didn’t realize, as you didn’t mention it and I hadn’t combed through all your diffs. There are a couple of others, too, at talk:Mykola Sumtsov and talk:Arkhip Kuindzhi. Do you feel there’s something you’d like to settle between us, separately or in this discussion?  —Michael Z. 00:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

The Shahmaran page is constantly being disrupted by the user HistoryofIran

• Shahmaran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 you asked for help off-wiki, which is a blatant violation of the canvassing guideline. LilianaUwU ^{(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

Rojin416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [39] [40] [41], 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 [42]. --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. LilianaUwU ^{(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? LilianaUwU ^{(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. Callmemirela 🍁 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?’ — 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. LilianaUwU ^{(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.. [43]), 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 [44] (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 [45]) - 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)

[46]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. Callmemirela 🍁 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)

   Oppose an indefinite block. Both Rojin416 and HistoryofIran 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.  — Freoh 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. With evidence of canvassing, PA, and edit warring, the indef block could have been warranted. Callmemirela 🍁 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. — 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)

  Rojin416 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 HistoryofIran'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.  — 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 [47]). 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. Callmemirela 🍁 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. — 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. — 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden

Volkish Kurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [48] [49], and thinking that they get to omit a (highly prominent) historian because they dont agree with them [50]) 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 [51]. 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. @HistoryofIran: 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)

Link to personal blog of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll

I wasn't sure where to ask about this, so I will try here. 22spears has added a link to the article Tom O'Carroll. The link goes to O'Carroll's personal blog. O'Carroll is a notorious pedophile who has been jailed multiple times and continues to advocate pedophilic relationships. Old conversations on Talk:Tom O'Carroll show that a different O'Carroll site was removed in the past.

Is this link is allowed on Wikipedia? MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• I've indefffed the OP, an unusual new editor, for repeated personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination). The OP also failed to notify 22spears.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  You can call them personal attacks, but there also some pretty serious accusations that should be addressed. We have an editor adding in an encyclopedia article a blog by a convicted pedophile and relaying this person's view that an 11 year old is "hot". If what the OP wrote is true this is not the block that was needed here. nableezy - 23:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am beginning to believe the wrong new editor might have been indeffed here…. Someone (maybe me, tomorrow when I have my laptop out) needs to take a longer, critical look at 22spears editing. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  And their user page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but what's wrong with their userpage? GIF of dancing anime-girl? Or quote with d-word? USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 06:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not so much "or" as "and". As in, the image and the quote and their choice of articles to edit. The combination is trolling at best. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  About that addition on Tom O'Carroll's article, nableezy, I added it primarily due to my notion surrounding the WP:UNCENSORED policy. I am aware that his comments regarding children were icky, but in my understanding they did merit being added in the article due to the fact that he was once reported on news outlets and social media accounts for making sexualized comments regarding a drag kid in his wordpress blog before it was banned. And if it is true that I added a link to his blog in the WP article, as the OP was saying, I'm almost sure that I did it to source the claims that O'Carroll's did indeed make those comments (this is a BLP after all, so sourcing in those articles is never too much, especially when it comes to potentially criminal/sexual harrassment accusations). 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Uncensored does not mean include the personal blog of a pedophile as though that were a usable source. The only source in the Drag kids section you added is O'Carroll's personal blog. We do not advertise a pedophile's views on how hot an eleven year old is sourced to his blog in the name of "NOTCENSORED". I find that justification incredibly weak to the point of questioning why it was even made. And there is no if about it, the internet famously being written in ink and Wikipedia having this nifty diff feature shows that you indeed did add that blog and that sentence. nableezy - 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nableezy is 100% right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously. Our article was discovered by "pro-MAPs" within days of its creation, and that was followed by signs of canvassing at the AfD. According this academic book: several pro-pedophilia online groups want to make Wikipedia "more neutral" (in their favour), and to push traffic to their sites, which makes the O'Carroll edit look awful, as well as this edit by another SPA involved in the "MAP" article.

  There are also these personal attacks [52] [53], and this BLPvio through an MREL source[54] (see the new section at the end, and contrast with comment below about BLPCRIME). Different diff from GhostofDanGurney. DFlhb (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then I was on the wrong there, and the reverd by gnu was right. Again, I'm new on Wikipedia, nableezy, be patient with me. Looking up this incident right now, I found this and this souces from online outlets, both of which technically tell the truth but are generally unreliable. This is were I was coming from with those edits, but the decision to source it with a blog post was clearly wrong and was probably made when I wasn't aware of WP's policies regarding reliable sources. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can't WP:ABOUTSELF be reasonably applied in an "Opinions" section, even for someone we consider despicable? small jars tc 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly, but there is also the WP:BLPCRIME policy that should be considered, which says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". It is possible that in some jurisdictions what O'Carroll did could be considered sexual harrassment, so it's better to not include anything about that anyway. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  You think the reason not to include this is to protect O'Carrroll? nableezy - 05:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please read point #2 of ABOUTSELF. Or the bolded part. DFlhb (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  In WP:ABOUTSELF, after the bolded part, is "so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" see the last inclusion entry in WP:EXTRAORDINARY: "Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions...". I presume calling ten-year-olds "hot" is 'contradicted by the prevailing view', otherwise we wouldn't set the legal age of consent higher than that. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Is it against mainstream opinions that a known pedophile would have the personal opinion that a ten year old is "hot”? 22spears' additions to the section did not at all take O'Carrroll's claims at face value, but only made claims about claims. (And not claims I imagine that any pro-pedophile POV pusher would like to see kept on the article!) I can appreciate that the child protection element seriously complicates things, but still feel that 22spears was acting roughly in line with normal interpretation of policy in these edits, though maybe the juxtaposition of the two contradictory claims in O'Carrroll's blog post, without secondary coverage of this contradiction bordered on WP:SYNTH, and the whole section seems dubiously WP:DUE. small jars tc 10:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I parse the texts at the two WP pages I cited above, "the material" at O'Carroll's blog was making that "exceptional claim" (="contradicted by the prevailing view") that a ten-year-old was "hot"; thus should not have been linked. But I may have mis-read, mis-parsed, or mis-interpreted those texts, or perhaps missed seeing other text that would result in a different conclusion. This is one reason to seek consensus: more eyes looking into a topic miss fewer things. – .Raven  ^.talk 10:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLP also applies to the child here - we need to consider their privacy and wellbeing in this situation as well. WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems particularly relevant - if a child is being creeped on by a 70 year old is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to continue to spread the creepy and inappropriate comments around, based on a citation to a blog run by the person who said the creepy stuff in the first place? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I strongly agree that the content should not be in the article from this standpoint, as opposed to a WP:V-based argument, but which of the reasons we see as relevant has repercussions on our assessment of 22spears' overall conduct, which I would summarise as “insensitive” rather than “POV-pushing”. small jars tc 11:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block of 22spears. I share MrPinkingShears's concerns about 22spears's editing in the paedophilia topic area. 22spears added a "drag kids" section sourced only to O'Carroll's personal blog; I have removed it. gnu57 00:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether 22spears deserves to be blocked, the "comments" made by MPS are unacceptable. Here are some (without diffs):

"If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV."

"This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll..."

"22spears Your use of someone's first name in your edits gave me the impression that you either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them. That would explain why you refer to them by their first name, so familiarly. I didn't see you call Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll?"

---Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that these comments were casting aspersions and in effect personal attacks, even if I do have misgivings about 22spears' edits The swarm of SPAs surrounding this topic area more generally (especially at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) suggests that there may be some off-wiki activity (which maybe includes joe-jobbing). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change the OP’s signature in your previous edit? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would assume Hemiauchenia was on autopilot or something, considering their editing history on Opilioacaridae. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bizarre error. I have no idea it occurred and it was obviously unintentional. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s ok, it wasn’t my intent to accuse you of wrongdoing. Just couldn’t figure out what happened. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:79A5:1681:C818:558E (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparenrly MrPinkingShears recently showed up here again as this IP, though his reply was erased. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Spears22, regarding those diffs you just cited (attacks on Bbb23 calling for de-admining) -- those have been coming from new users and Virginia-based IPs (range: 2601:5c2:200:21bd::/64) for several months - well before any of the controversies here and before you (Spears22) or MrPinkingShears started editing. I don't think that's MrPinkingShears making those edits you just cited. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Depending on the nature of that blog, there may be Wikipedia:Child protection considerations if the potential exists for an interaction between a young reader and the blog owner as a result of this link. I’d skip the link if in doubt. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A little creepy that 22spears’ edit refers to “Tom”, not “O’Carroll”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I was waiting for this comment. Callmemirela 🍁 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Now, to be fair, it was brought up by MrPinkingShears earlier. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion that’s a serious enough concern to be brought up again, an editor with a history that seems to imply they have been generally trying to make pedophilia/pedophiles appear more favorably referring to a famous pro-pedophilia activist by first name is quite concerning. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Even creepier that it's not even "Tom", but "Thomas" in the edit summary. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I often refer to the people of the biographies I edit by their first name. You can navigate my edits relating to Allyn Walker (who I even referred as Allyson, which is their full (dead)name), and maybe even Tim Ballard if you want to confirm. I don't see how the fact that I refer to them by their first names means that I have a personal connection with them, at least in my mother language that is a common thing to do, even if the person we are talking about is a stranger (admins in this thread can see where I am from by looking at my IP's geolocation, but don't expose where I live). 🔥 22spears 🔥 03:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Using a first name like that is not our style on the English Wikipedia. Also, admins can't see your IP address; only check-users can (for sock puppetry) and they have to show justification. I suppose IP records may be accessible for legal proceedings but that's at the level of the Wikipedia Foundation, not Wikipedia editors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block The creepy userpage. The creation of "minor-attracted person" over a redirect to Wiktionary and Stigma of pedophilia. The other points raised here by A. B. and Genericusername57 are just too many dots for me. The icing on the cake here for me is that their first edit (made less than two months ago) included BLP-violating wording about the founder of an anti-pedophilia group. This "unusual new editor" does not seem capable of editing from a NPOV in this topic area (which I would believe falls under the GENSEX CTOP). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked out the blog post that started this argument. The content certainly fits within our WP:NOTCENSORED policy. However, per Wikipedia:Child protection, I am concerned about the opportunity for interaction between an underaged reader and one of the many people commenting on the blog post (there are 175 comments). I don't think it's worth the risk to underage readers. Besides, that link is the reference for a comment by O'Carroll that's of minor import - just how important is it that we include his opinion of child drag performer Desmond is Amazing? I say delete the Desmond is Amazing opinion and the blog link together. Dilemma resolved. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying since there are discussions on two different editors going on in here, that this is support of a block for 22spears. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block of 22spears per my reply above, and per my AfD arguments that Minor attracted person is a POV fork and unacceptably normalizes pedophilia (per Zaathras is right). DFlhb (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Attraction to minors includes more than just pedophilia, so Minor-attracted person cannot possibly be a POV fork of Pedophilia. Casdmo (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is the main counterargument to POVFORK, yet it's a technicality.

  This paper, highly-cited (380 citations), says For the sake of simplicity and convention, we refer to both hebephilic and pedophilic men as “pedophilic.” That's common even in scholarship. When papers treat them as interchangeable, it's not vandalism to do so. DFlhb (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  In this case "common" conflicts with "precision", an event also found in "Hindu terrorism" vs "Hindutva terrorism", "Islamic terrorism" vs "Islamist terrorism", "Christian terrorism" vs "Christian nationalist terrorism", etc. At a certain point, I think precision should win, otherwise we're helping perpetuate mistakes because they're "common" mistakes. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I deny the implicit premise that the topic of a POV-fork must be precisely coterminous with the topic of the forked article. The topic minor-attracted person might indeed be a strict superset of the topic pedophilia (though I do not grant this), yet nonetheless the former may still be a POV-fork of the latter. WP:POVFORK itself gives an example of a POV-fork that does not cover the precise topic area of any existing article. Shells-shells (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be more precise, minor-attracted person is a subset of the Chronophilia subject (because it emcompasses some chronophilias, such as pedophilia and hebephilia, but not others such as mesophilia and gerontophilia). The reason why I created that page was not for it to be a POV-fork, it was because of the of the recent controversies relating to the usage of this term by public figures and organizations (Project Horizon, Mermaids, etc; you can read about them in the MAP article, if it's still there). Since that term was covered by RS, I believed it would be fine to create a separate article just to address it. I had actually made some edits on the Chronophilia page just to address this term, but it felt a little off-topic, which motivated me to start a draft of an article dedicated just to that word in my userspace, which I then published in the mainspace in the beggining of this month. That article was sort of a WP:SPLIT from the Chronophilia and Allyn Walker ones. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to make it clear that @DFlhb has had a personal beef with me for days ever since I made a revert of his edit in the MAP article (I called it a "POV-push", and 2 minutes later he showed up to oppose me in the AfD and then called me uncivil in the talk page), so therefore any claim that he makes about me or I make about him is not coming from an unbiased party. About that edit, DFlhb, I wasn't trying to offend you, I was just being blunt. I understand that it feels shitty when someone dismisses your contribution as bad, especially in a revert, but calling for me to be blocked two days after that happened is in a level of bitterness that I have never had against anyone on WP. Actually, I almost invited you to discuss on the talk page of that article about the edit that you had made, but I felt like I didn't have to because I thought you would already knew how WP:Dispute resolutions usually work on WP. You're not the first person I disagreed with in the article, I have also called Sedan's edit SYNTH in the past and we were able to discuss the issue civilly in the talk page just fine. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  The user is now blocked, but for the record, I started typing my AfD reply before that revert ever happened; it had no impact on my vote. DFlhb (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose block of 22spears. The only misstep 22spears has made was the aforementioned citation of O'Carroll. 22spears has admitted fault (see above) regarding the citation. The other stated reasons for supporting a block of 22spears pertain to personal discomfort (such as one editor's use of the word creepy above), which is too subjective to warrant a block. Casdmo (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since you directly reference my support of a block, I will clarify that my support comes from the totality of reasons I stated, including their first version of Predator Poachers containing BLP-violating material about the founders political views, not just their interpretation of WP:UPYES to include a particular lyric placed beside a particular image. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose MrPinkingShears block - I disagree with indefinitely blocking MrPinkingShears. His comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor-attracted person (2nd nomination) crossed a line but nobody really warned him of our policies before dropping an indefinite block. I suggest trimming the block. I will also note that he has made some good comments about content. He just needs to understand we argue over content not other editors' intentions. I think a 24-hour block would serve that purpose just as well. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  What "line" did MPS cross? From what I just read, the only aspersion he cast was to accuse 22spears of pushing a pro-pedophilia POV. That's pretty harsh, sure, but a number of editors in this thread have made the exact same accusation. Ravenswing 08:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. You're never going to find a smoking gun on this kind of thing, but there really isn't any good-faith justification for the pattern of edits 22spears has made. A well-meaning neutral party with an interest in paraphilias might fall into some of the mistakes observed at the MAP article, but that wouldn't explain the other edits discussed here, which are much more decidedly "pedophile culture war"-y, nor would it explain the insistence on avoiding the word "pedophile". I would indef as NOTHERE, but I happen to have created the original redirect, which isn't actually involvement in this dispute but I suppose could be taken that way, so I'll just leave this as a strong suggestion that some other admin do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't use the word "pedophile" in the MAP article because reliable sources that cover this term did not do so. They all say pedophilia is a subset of the minor-attracted person umbrella. You can read them yourself. 90% of what I did in that article was put "minor-attracted person" on google and google scholar and transcribe what reliable sources said about the topic to the article. Just to illustrate it, this generally reliable source states that "The concept of Minor-Attracted Persons (MAPs), which is perceived by some as part of the attempt to normalize pedophilia, is an umbrella term used by organizations such as B4U-ACT or The Global Prevention Project, an organization that addresses “risky sexual thoughts, fantasies, and non-contact problematic sexual behavior in adult men and women,” in order to prevent child sexual abuse, as well as some researchers, to define a variety of people attracted to minors. These include nepiophiles (attracted to babies and toddlers), pedophiles (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephiles (attracted to pubescent children and early adolescents), and ephebophiles (attracted to late adolescents)." All other RS's that you find on Google will tell you the same thing. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Indef 22Spears and Unblock MrPinkingShears but give a final warning. Per GhostofDan Gurney, A.B. and Tamzin. The current situation - with the one account blocked and the other not - is really disturbing. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked 22Spears for what appears to be an uncomfortable pattern of pro-pedophilia POV pushing. I realize that these discussions are typically left open for 24 hours, but frankly with this kind of concern, I think we should err on the side of caution. I have deliberately not closed or hatted this discussion; if consensus turns against this block then so be it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I came to the same conclusion as PMC and Tamzin before seeing this thread, but PMC beat me to the block. It's blinding obvious what 22spears is up to here and I'm astonished that Bbb23's response was to block MrPinkingShears for pointing that out. Anyway, I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stigma of pedophilia and I think we need eyes on the rest of 22spears' remaining creations: Predator Poachers, Allyn Walker, primary prevention of child sexual abuse and User:22spears/Todd Nickerson. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Allyn Walker passes WP:GNG and is a notable topic. The article doesn't seem to have any major POV issues as far as I can tell. No strong opinions on the others. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with a close review of all articles this user has created or significantly contributed to. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Good block of 22spears, but I add my voice to those calling for MrPinkingShears to be unblocked. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'd put a laughing emoji here usually, except this isn't really very funny...  Tewdar  09:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Reverse block of MrPinkingShears – WP:AGF? Those are comments that could certainly be good faith, and they're not clear personal attacks. A warning is probably justified here, as the questions about knowing the pedophile personally are over the line, but a block is excessive.

As for 22spears' block, I'm neutral on it. I haven't done a deep dive into their contributions, but they did seem to be POV-pushing, and they were a single-purpose account over 1100 edits in 2 months – still, I'm not sure this is necessarily grounds for a block over a TBAN, when they have expressed a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future. However, I might be taking AGF too far here, and I'm certainly not a regular around here, so I'm not too familiar with the ropes of this area. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:CHILDPRO re blocking the 22spears account as a matter of policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The MAP AFD is chock full of SPAs that need some attention. Courcelles (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I'd say WP:CHILDPRO justifies MrPinkingShears' ban more so than 22spears'. The idea of 22spears supposedly advocating anything is clearly subjective, but MrPinkingShears without a doubt did publish allegations against 22spears on-site rather than via email as the policy requires. --Pokelova (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well ... the rabbit hole THAT falls into is that lacking a blatant statement such as "I'm a proud pedo!" from an editor or a smoking gun link with a phrase like "Check this out!" to a NAMBLA webpage, an admin could indef an editor for violating CHILDPRO, but be in violation themselves for saying why. Ravenswing 15:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing The policy doesn't even seem to say what Pokelova claims it does. The policy states that Editors seemingly pushing agendas can be referred to any administrator in exactly the same way as any other POV-pushing allegation. Treating it in exactly the same way as any other allegation would surely include the use of WP:AE, WP:ANI, administrator talk pages etc? The bit about using email seems to be related to identifying people as paedophiles, which seems reasonable given the Libel/Outing concerns. Asking if 22spears knew Tom O'Carroll was toeing the line, but they don't seem to have actually made accusations of anything other than POV pushing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the ping. I don't believe the 22spears block is subjective. I haven't reviewed MrPinkingShears' block, sorry. Plenty of others have in this thread, so I'm confident it's getting appropriate attention. -- 11:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs)

a desire to edit Ancient Greek and Lusophone-related articles in the future Without comment on anything else about the justification for either block, an apparent SPA with a history of POV-pushing on paedophilia-related topics wanting to edit on Ancient Greek history is not necessarily reassuring. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, pederasty in ancient Greece and related topics are a known ideological battleground for people with an axe to grind related to paedophilia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like 86Sedan was just banned too as an AE action, which I support. See the edits apparently whitewashing an org that argues that if a child is "willing", no harm is caused. This edit summary is misleading: "minimize harm" is not an opinion but straight from the cited source, and there's no "controversy" about what the clinical data say, per the sources we cite. See also the insertion the self-description of a controversial group (a group which refuses to take sides pro/contra molestation). And just for fun, peep this other misleading edit summary. DFlhb (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked I have accepted MrPinkingShears' unblock request as I see multiple admins calling for it, and no objections. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Support all current blocks (i.e. not MPS). Ugh. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can probably close this section of the thread, as it seems all necessary action has been taken, unless there's anything else. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support current state of affairs (22spears and 86sedan blocked), PinkingShears unblocked. Obviously matters have already been set aright here, but I thought I would provide a little bit of extra context underlying the disturbing activities here and the fact that they go back a bit. I've previously (to my great distaste) become familiar with the situation at the O'Carrol article in the past: I can't recall if the first occasion was via RfC or in my capacity as a pending changes reviewer, but I do recall the circumstances were distressingly similar to those here: a small cadre of abuse apologists pursuing attempts to whitwash the article, legitimize O'Carrol's propensities as just a sort of sexual identity, and shift the article more towards discussing his views rather than independent RS coverage of his crimes and reputation in mainstream sources, all in pretty blatant violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT.

Now, I didn't face any ill-advised block or other blowback for my efforts to draw attention to this situation, but as I recall there was significant frustration of another sort in that I was met with mostly silence as I attempted to send up a flag at several different spaces. I will, reluctantly, poke through the new edits by these two new blocked users to see if the pattern of their edits rings any bells of familiarity and see if there is anything practical I can add to hopefully creating a bullwark against this community of O'Carrol boosters, but I really do think the fact that this situation has played out so similarly multiple times now suggests that we could be doing more to lock down that particular article and streamline and facilitate reports on violations of this nature. In the meantime, I wonder if it doesn't make more sense to advise anyone who runs into similar behaviour in this or other articles on such predators to simply take the matter directly to the Trust and Safety team. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: If you're looking for connections to past O'Carroll supporters, do note that I've blocked Doxastic1000 as a likely sock of one such user, Researcher1000 (as well as per CHILDPROTECT). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin: I appreciate the heads-up! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, so I've looked through the recent edit history of the O'Carrol article and some of the contributions of the recently blocked pair of SPAs, and reviewed my filing at SPI for the then-most-recent socks of the Researcher1000 sockmaster--I eventually utilized SPI to get some administrative action because it was taking too long to get blocks implemented on WP:CHILDPROTECT criteria alone; thankfully the socking case was strong, even without technical evidence. I would be very surprised indeed if this is not the same user or set of users--it has been unclear from the start the number of bad actors, but I think it is just one or two.

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

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

Ok, that's all I have the time/energy/mental stamina for now, folks: I was already exhausted from the week and nearly a couple of straight days up, and stumbling towards well overdue sleep before I noticed that this ugly situation had resurge. And revisiting it hasn't exactly been a refreshing tonic. I'll try to tease out some additional details this weekend, but the long and the short of it is that I do think this is the same group of abuse-apologist activists; it is a very good thing that MrPinkingShears caught and moved to arrest their activities this time around; the article should probably be semi- or pending changes-protected indefinitely this time; and we need a more dedicated methodology for getting robust attention to WP:CHILDPROTECT violations more immediately. As for the rest, it will have to wait until my brain is rebooted. Thanks to everyone who acted to stop this malignancy this time, once it became clear what was going on. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't really qualify for protection at this stage: it's fairly low-traffic (around 20 edits this year) with no current vandalism, edit-warring, disruption or vigorous content disputes. It's a controversial topic to be sure, but semi-protection or ECP for fear of future negative edits seems unnecessarily pre-emptive. It also wouldn't have prevented the addition of the O'Carroll blog link back in March, as the editor who added it was extended-confirmed.

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

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

Add in the fact that the subject is a pariah, with no real notability outside his crimes and advocacy in the 70s and 80s (and thus that there should be little need to adjust the article much, absent new crimes) and the math I feel militates very, very strongly for protection. Actually, you could ignore everything I just said after "WP:CHILDPROTECT violations" and it still would do. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that the exact scenario in which pending changes is normally used? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles created by 22spears

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

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

Call it IAR if you like, but I'm deleting the userspace pages on that list. Courcelles (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Im currently in the process of making some bold edits to "Primary prevention of child sexual abuse", it seems like the purpose it was created for was to push the idea that arresting child abusers is bad, but it also seems notable outside of that so im not going to AFD (right now) Googleguy007 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You might be wasting your time, Googleguy007. That page starts "The primary prevention of sexual abuse consists of a set of measures taken to prevent child sexual abuse before it happens". Given that prevention of something after it happens is relatively unusual, and removing some other clutter, that sentence reduces to "The prevention of [child] sexual abuse is the prevention of child sexual abuse". That's not a promising definition of a topic. I'd consider redirecting it Sexual violence#Prevention or some better target, but AfD looks like a good option too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good point, thinking about it a little more it doesn’t really have a purpose outside of describing punishing child sexual abusers as somehow worse than attempting to get them help. I do think it ~could~ make a decent article someday but that would have to be after a full rewrite. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I redirected it to Child sexual abuse#Prevention as a quick fix. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I would parse that as "preventing even the *first* time someone abuses a child, rather than waiting until then to try preventing *subsequent* times" – the latter being admittedly how the judicial system (imprisonment, parole, abuser-registry) works, as actual criminal acts are what triggers it — merely *potential* criminals don't enter that system. But then all those "first victims" don't get protected. Something that prevents the *first* abuse thus protects those children, yet doesn't require imprisonment etc., works also to the benefit of the pedophiles, true... but in this case, NOT benefitting the pedophiles requires NOT protecting their "first victims". If I misunderstand that, please explain in what way. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Allyn Walker is based heavily upon post-2013 Newsweek and other unreliable sources. At best, it needs radical stubbification. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Operation Underground Railroad was also substantially edited by 22spears, and needs scrutiny. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Cut this one back. The talk page has solid, experienced editors so I think it's in good hands. DFlhb (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've cut Allyn Walker back to a point where the sourcing is respectable, at least. I'm somewhat concerned that we have a WP:BLP1E situation; an academic wouldn't likely be notable for a single book, and the controversy seems to have made a splash and then receded as people found the next thing to be angry at. XOR'easter (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Having worked on the article and having thought about the sourcing further. I agree there is a convincing argument that this is a WP:BLP1E. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

If there hadn't been a controversy, we'd have an academic with a single book to their credit, and the standard course of action would be to refactor the article into a page about the book. XOR'easter (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I've taken it to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allyn Walker. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Wish I did. I only speak like 3 words Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the subject matter, so I'm a poor judge of fringe-pushing here, but I would draw to people's attention the creation of an article for Danilo Baltieri ([55]) that makes various claims about medical/scholarly topics but is cited solely to journalistic sources, the addition of similarly-cited claims attributed to Baltieri on the pt.wiki page for pedophilia ([56]), the liberal application of citation-needed tags at the same ([57]). I'm going to notify their AN-equivalent of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill, Suffusion of Yellow, and Dronebogus: The content added or removed by the account on ptwiki significantly modified the structure of a sensitive article, a fact that already justifies the reversal of edits. In short, the feeling I get is the same as Rosguill. He removed information referenced by academic sources or entities/institutions by content referenced by journalistic interviews.

This subject is quite controversial on ptwiki. In the past, we even had suspicions of accounts practicing apology for pedophilia. I'm not an expert. But that article cannot be left unprotected. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Conde Edmon Dantès, for taking action here. Also pinging Isabelle Belato, an enwiki admin who's active on ptwiki, just for a second set of eyes there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Making a note that I've seen the ping and will take a look later today, thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Also regarding 86sedan

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

1. I just found out that the user was blocked on Wiktionary in September 2021 with the reason "Disruptive edits: advocating illegal activities". Going forward, this can be a reminder to myself and others to check cross-wiki permissions (e.g. [58]). But also: shouldn't the user have been blocked here as well? Is it policy when someone is blocked for such a reason? If not, perhaps it should be?

2. 86sedan claims to be a WP:SOCKLEGIT in the first sentence of their userpage. Personally, I've doubted this, and consider it to be an excuse to explain why they were familiar with Wikipedia and that the original was in fact a blocked account from years past. But given this admission, should we not run a CheckUser on the account to see who, if anyone, the master is, and block them as well? There is off-wiki evidence that they have made contributions on certain non-WMF sites that are extremely concerning, and that's all I'll say for now in case this is considered aspersions or something. If an admin prompts me to reply more here or to send an email I am happy to oblige.

Crossroads ^-talk- 19:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a claim off-wiki (which might or might not be the same one) that connects 86sedan with another user account at a pedophilia-related site, but I didn't see any actual evidence to support the connection (other than the other identity mentioned the 86sedan Wiktionary block). Also, looking at all of 86sedan's Wiktionary contributions, I don't actually see any advocacy of any illegal act (though I guess something might have been deleted). I am disturbed by 86sedan's contributions here, but we need to be careful not to just believe allegations made against them without carefully checking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we did see the same off-wiki discussion, but personally I found the evidence compelling, and it also fits in with the user's repeated whitewashing regarding that very site, seen in the history here: [59] Crossroads ^-talk- 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it sounds like we saw the same thing. And I hadn't checked those edits regarding that site, which does indeed make the connection seem more persuasive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Crossroads: There's more at the same source now, though you may well have already seen it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

On point 2, I think a CheckUser check might be warranted here. I think the SOCKLEGIT declaration on 86sedan's userpage satisfies NOTFISHING, as there is a reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry if the other known account(s) are not blocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I, too, find the LEGITSOCK claims to be dubious and enough on their own to warrant a CU. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I gotta agree with you there, seems like a CU check should be done considering the touchy subject and the generally dubious claims. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Please see my comments to Tamzin above for discussion and links indicating the sock master and farm most likely at play here, which may or may not include O'Carroll himself, but which do, with a high degree of certainty, involve members of some profoundly hideous community that attempts to lionize him and spread his philosophy of re-contextualizing sexual abuse as a healthy alternative sexuality and lifestyle. These activists have been dealt with here before, but I never did know from what dark corner of the internet they pustuled. I gather some here have now deduced some of those details, and we can put the old violations together with new information and maybe be a little better prepared for them next time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also Qirtaiba (Jeremy Malcolm) and R alvarez02

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

It might be worth revdelling the AfD's page from revisions 1155011353 to 1155094689, as it includes the same link that was on Qirtaiba's user page as added by R alvarez02. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Questions for Bbb23

(Bbb23) Related to this block, and only this block

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

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

Again, I know you meant well, and simply misjudged the situation. But I think a full reckoning will help you, and others, from making similar mistakes in the future. Thank you for your time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I explained why I blocked right after, including quotes of the personal attacks by MPS, a brand new user. I thought the attacks were egregious and merited an indefinite block. In hindsight, perhaps I should have focused more on 22spears, but although personal attacks may be understandable, that does not make them acceptable. The user's block was overturned fairly quickly. Given all the positive comments by others about MPS's conduct, I doubt that the block had any kind of "chilling effect"; nor do I imagine any future new user will even know about it. This reponse may not be fully satisfactory to you, but it's all I have to say about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

One isolated bad block won't create a chilling effect. But a pattern of ill-thought-out BOOMERANG-ish behavior will lead people to mind their own business and not speak up. That's not all on you, of course; ANI would still be a toxic stew without your presence. But I think it would go a long way if you just straight out admitted that you were wrong this one time. That sort of apology can't be forced, of course. I still urge you to reflect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your position is contradictory. On the one hand, you're saying no harm done because the community acted swiftly to reverse you. On the other hand, you don't agree that you were wrong in the first place. The community can't possibly review every block you make; it has to trust that you're exercising good judgement. Here, during a very public discussion with many witnesses, you didn't exercise good judgement, and you're declining to engage. Do you see the problem, and will you reconsider? Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 made a reasonable action in the moment, that upon the presentation of further evidence, turned out to be not the correct decision, and it was undone. That further evidence later came out doesn't mean the incorrect decision was made in the moment. --Jayron32 11:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Bbb23) Other related matters

This isn't the first time this has happened; they are not a bad admin but they can be quick on the admin tools at times... I hope they will take your suggestions to heart. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

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

I've read this like 3-4 times, and the only word that comes to mind is "catty". Bbb23 is not on trial here, your dredging up piles of 3-4 year-old stuff completely unrelated to the simple question posed (which per WP:ADMINACCT, they answered) is conduct unbecoming. Should we start a sub-section about your missteps since becoming an admin, Tamzin? Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin's not the admin who blocked a user shortly after that user reported pedo-advocacy, and if it's part of a pattern of short-sighted use of tools, I don't think it's unbecoming to bring the pattern up. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like more evidence of a pattern, Zaathras: Bbb23's insistence that "collaborating" with other editors is a problem, seen in the Smallcolt/Xvixvi case, is not a one-time thing, nor something that he's desisted from. In July 2021, he blocked Jebbles and Eswong as sox for working together on content; he was reversed, refusing to ackowledge any error. Last month, he blocked Pharmacystudent000 and IloveDPPH for, as best I can tell, collaborating on a userspace draft. He did not justify the latter blocks in response to inquiry, and both blocks were reversed per AN/I. Want more hasty blocks? TomatoBhutan, blocked for drafting a table in their sandbox. This is a persistent problem of poor judgment in use of the blocking tool, and failing to adequately respond to colleagues when queried about these poor blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned that this diff from January 2023 re: the TomatoBhutan block also shows a refusal to admit they were wrong. "I do not oppose giving the user a second chance." A second chance??? When all they were doing was making tables for baseball and professional wrestling articles? That lost them a "first chance"? Beyond My Ken is this really "quite good judgement"? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

While I share some of Tamzin's concerns regarding Bbb23's approach to blocks, this specific example seems frivolous: off-handedly referring to unblocking someone as "giving a second chance" seems like a reasonable, colloquial expression that does not imply a lack of accountability or insistence on always being right. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess I just fail to see how anyone could interpret TomatoBhutan's editing as WP:NOTHERE. I very much appreciate your input here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

side discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlavender (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you think that Bbb23's actions deserve sanctioning, discussing them here will do absolutely nothing except to smear them. If you're that put out by it, and think it serious enough to deserve an ANI thread, I suggest you open an arbitration request and ask for a desysop and see how far that gets you. If you're not willing to do that, the matter should be dropped. A mistake was made, and corrected almost immediately by others -- we don't force people to make apologies, nor should we drag them in the mud when we disagree with them, as you appear to want to do. I don't plan to say anything more about this, and if you take my advice, you won't either, because your comments are beginning to reflect quite badly on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Accountability shouldn't require threatening people with sanctions. Mackensen (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Accountability for admins, if one feels they have done wrong, does not and can not come via an ANI thread of random assertions, is what I believe BMK's point to be. Jesus, what a dumpster fire the un-hatting of this tangent is becoming. Zaathras (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Exactly. The section should not have been uncollapsed, especially by one of the participants. (I had not commented here at the time of my collapsing it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Tamzin's tattle-tale behavior against another admin I'm sorry, but what a load of absolute nonsense. By the rest of the logic in this sentence, no-one can make valid complaints against an admin who is demonstrating a pattern of block first, questions and justifications never. It's also particularly perverse to call this "tattle-tale behavior", where if Tamzin hadn't posted links to questionable blocks, or the past ArbCom finding of fault against bbb23, it would have left them open to accusations of casting unsupported aspersions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Note, because there seems to have been an edit conflict or a change that the reply tool didn't otherwise pick up, at the time I made the above reply the comment I was replying to looked like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Beyond My Ken sensibly removed that part of his comment; it reflected poorly on him and I doubt Bbb23 would want to be associated with that kind of defense. Let's all focus on the matter at hand. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) My views here are my own, I am not a representative of Bbb23. I note that Tamzin's poor judgment in uncollapsing this thread has allowed all sorts of random complaints to be posted. I wonder if other admins would be comfortable in having such an unfocused open-season thread opened about their behavior? Such a potpourri of grudges can only be detrimental to any admin's willingness to perform their duties and make what might be unpopular decisions which are necessary to protect the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Speaking as an administrator yes, I feel comfortable being accountable for my conduct. Old hands know that when I was more active, especially as a checkuser, I didn't shy away from such discussions, regardless of who asked. Sometimes I got short with people, but I think I usually apologized afterwards. That's the price of holding and exercising the tools. Mackensen (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I've been on the receiving end of a thread like this. It wasn't fun, but I never once thought it was improper. I think (or hope at least) that answers like mine and Mackensen's are what you're going to get from any admin. No one should ever be afraid to hold an admin accountable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Seconding this. Tamzin's points are legitimate concerns and this is a place to discuss them. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I agree with her concerns as well; I just am a bit biased as I butt heads with Bbb23 around 5 years ago, although I don't remember what it was about. I'm really hoping that they will take our concerns to heart and be less "quick on the draw". --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Bbb23 should be sent to ArbCom. He definitely deserves to be desysopped. 84.9.224.117 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) And who are you when you're not hiding behind an IP? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Why are you being so defensive? I don't agree with the IP but people are allowed to share their pseudoanonymous opinions. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Which in this context is possibly an editor who received a block from the said sysop. IPs don't just appear out of nowhere to staunchly advocate desysoping someone. –Vipz (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) It could also be an active user who simply doesn't want their criticism of Bbb23 to be tied to their account. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Which would be a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry as avoiding scrutiny. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) There's also the broader context that sockpuppets have been hounding Bbb23 (in particular at ANI, I believe) for some time now, popping up all the time with names like "Bbb23 is the worst" or much more offensive equivalents. While I don't think this IP needs to be blocked at this time, I'm not inclined to AGF much for IPs with no editing history making belligerent comments about Bbb23. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Ahh.. that explains why Beyond my Ken is being defensive. I wasn't aware of this history. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Well, I'm glad you think you've found the answer, but in fact I wasn't aware that Bbb23 was under attack from IPs socks any more than is usual for an admin who is diligent about policing the project. No, I was motivated not by IPs attacking Bbb23, nor by Suffusion of Yellow's questions (although I thought that asking them in public before approaching Bbb23 privately was bad form), but by Tamzin's poor judgment in jumping on Bbb23 with a completely non-relevant post about past grievances. [60](The post about which Zaathras said "I've read this like 3-4 times, and the only word that comes to mind is "catty".") No, hijacking this thread to attack a fellow admin instead of taking up their concerns with Bbb23 directly, or if they'd already done that, making a separate report with evidence by way of diffs, they threw open the door to anyone who Bbb23 ever blocked or sanctioned to vent against them in an open-ended venue with no stated purpose. That's what annoyed me and got my blood up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Hello to folks at Wikipediocracy. I don't read your site, so feel free to speculate that I'm Bbb23's marionette all you want, it only shows, I guess, the level of discourse and analysis over there, since it's doubtful that anyone actually familiar with my history could possibly harbor the suspicion that I am anybody's tool. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This is a relevant discussion, and I do not see how it is hijacking. The initial thread resulted in a not-very-great action from Bbb23, and a subsection was created to discuss it...this seems pretty standard. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Then I believe you have completely missed my point. So it goes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) There are many steps in accountability for admins before going to ArbCom for a desysop. For better or for worse, this is the noticeboard where problematic conduct behaviours are discussed, and by doing it here instead of jumping straight for the big red de-sysop button it gives Bbb23 the opportunity to reflect upon what they are doing wrong, and how they can do better. That is infinitely more valuable than a straight jump-to-desysop, as if Bbb23 does reflect upon this and change how they approach blocks, it allows us to retain an experienced admin whom is now living up to the standards expected by the community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Bbb23 answered the questions put to them more than adequately, but it seems that some people aren't satisfied and want sackcloth and ashes and self-flagellation. They demand a pound of flesh for a minor mistake quickly corrected. I find that sad, inappropriate and counter-productive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Personally, I would settle for Bbb23 acknowledging that they had, in fact, made a mistake, and undertaking to learn from the experience. I don't think that's asking for too much. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I agree with this; Bbb23 makes a lot of blocks (1848 since the start of the year; seventh after Materialscientist (19382), ST47 (8825), HJ Mitchell (3658), Widr (3326), Blablubbs (2186), and ScottishFinnishRadish (2068)). A couple of mistakes among these aren't unreasonable, as long as Bbb23 is open to recognizing when they have made mistakes and reversing them with an apology to the incorrectly blocked editor and an undertaking to learn from the experience. I am more concerned with Beyond My Ken's behavior in trying to shut down this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) It is well within any editor's discretion, admin or no, to try to preserve order by curbing an obviously-unproductive discussion. The airing of the grievances here is serving no purpose. Zaathras (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Closing the discussion? Sure. Closing the discussion, then after being reverted on that close, engaging with said discussion (and the reverter) by posting a fairly high volume of hyperbolic statements in regards to the behaviour of other participants, their motivations, and how bad it is that the discussion remains open? Even if one genuinely disagrees with the concerns being raised, and believes the discussion should be closed asap, I'd think it's fairly obvious that such comments 1. are only prolonging said discussion, not curbing it; and 2. are a bit closer to WP:BLUDGEON territory than strictly ideal. AddWittyNameHere 11:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Well it's nice to give them something to talk about in the forum's of the other place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Indeed. Disagreeing with someone's concerns about an admin's actions is quite distinct from claiming that it's unacceptable to raise concerns, and it's unfortunate that this thread includes a lot of the latter. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Related matter, Qirtaiba unblock request

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

I've declined it. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

While you're blocking one professional connected with Prostasia, You might also consider amending the block on Qirtaiba's colleague User:James Cantor to include child protection issues. You can see in this diff [[61]] that User:Qirtaiba manipulating the editors of Cantor's BLP into removing a reference to Cantor's tweet advocating that "P" for pedophile be added into the LGB... string of letters in close proximity to a mention of Prostasia as something controversial. Qirtaiba failed to declare his conflict of interest in wanting to remove the reference to his then employers in connnection with such a clumsy attempt at pedophile advocacy. The Media Matters for America article mentioned in the diff is at https://www.mediamatters.org/gays-against-groomers/florida-expert-formerly-slated-testify-favor-trans-health-care-ban-once and the tweet is included there with Media Matters' explanation of exactly what it is referring to. You can see confirmation at [[62]] that User:James Cantor is indeed James Cantor 82.45.168.246 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That's right, Media Matters for America, a well-known far-right entity! Thanks for the info, IP. It is disturbing. @GeneralNotability: ping blocking admin. El_C 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a topic I want to go anywhere near. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, civility, ownership, edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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: @SPECIFICO: 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:

Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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#Wording_re:_Rebukes: Made after [63].
  • 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#FBI Investigations into 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#Wording change re:Greenberg call: 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)

• 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 ([64][65][66][67] 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). [68])
  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 [69] (and has been warned about it at AE: [70]).
• This user (SPECIFICO) also has a history of hounding/harassing editors they disagree with politically/philosophically: including an anti-bludgeoning sanction [71] and specific campaigns/efforts to punish other users repeatedly [72][73]
• Of particular note: [74] (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[75] 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 [76]

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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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: [77]. And Julian Assange: [78] (also in 2020). They were also very close to sanctions for simiar knee-jerk reverts at Donald Trump in 2018: [79] 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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR:, 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
See these reverts which were later over-ruled by consensus, for example: [80][81][82][83] (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:

Warnings/sanctions against SPECIFICO, in reverse chronological order

"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." [84] 10 August 2022 "SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally." [85] 25 May 2022 I-ban after this whole thing [86]. 26 December 2020 "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from Julian Assange for a period of 2 weeks per this AE request." [87] 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." [88] 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)." [89] "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" [90] 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." [91]13 August 2018 "No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward." [92] 15 June 2018 " Warned 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, SPECIFICO 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." [93], [94] "That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." [95] 3 June 2018 [96] "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." [97] 20 May 2018 1-way I-ban [98]. 14 September 2014 TBAN from Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute [99]. 22 April 2014

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.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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 [100] 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 [101] And then, when pointed towards that talk page discussion, I happily participated and will accept consensus. As all things should be

Also, 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." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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
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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Edit request?

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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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#Violation of 24-hour BRD at Donald Trump and continuing with not understanding why they were edit warring [102] 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.[103] 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)

Self hatting—I didn't see Shibbolethink's response to this below (below Softlavender's response), and, while I stand by my response, my comment adds nothing to what was already said.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Notification diff: [104]. 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)

• 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 [105]. For some further perspective, the editor just got blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring on Donald Trump [106]. 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];
  [107][108][109][110][111] 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:

• 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." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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. 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. Jerome Frank Disciple, 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 ^talk 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. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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? — 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit obscure, but {{gender|SPECIFICO}} → she. 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|they|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. ––FormalDude (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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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. ––FormalDude (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. ––FormalDude (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" [112][113][114]
2. Repeatedly "going to many editors' talk pages to allege" [insert various forms of misconduct] without evidence. (e.g. WP:ASPERSIONS) [115][116][117]
   1. 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. [118] (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: [119][120]
3. Failing to AGF and generally biting newcomers (not just to the site, but to her preferred article spaces):
   1. This is another instance of your not being as familiar with WP policies and guidelines as you think.[121]
   2. Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback [122]
   3. 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) [123]
   4. 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[124]
   5. No more snide remarks please Disciple. Longtime editors in contentious topics are quite aware of NPOV[125]
   6. This is quite an intriguing approach. We could get this article down to about 3 sentences, after his birth in Queens etc.[126] (interestingly, a snide remark)
   7. There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion?[127] in response to this comment where JFD...agrees with SPECIFICO.
   8. Trying to bump off a witness?[128]
   9. 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?[129]
4. 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.

Past warnings/sanctions against SPECIFICO, in reverse chronological order

"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." [130] 10 August 2022 "SPECIFICO is warned to be more civil in the American Politics topic area and Wikipedia more generally." [131] 25 May 2022 I-ban after this whole thing [132]. 26 December 2020 "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from Julian Assange for a period of 2 weeks per this AE request." [133] 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." [134] 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)." [135] "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" [136] 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." [137]13 August 2018 "No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward." [138] 15 June 2018 " Warned 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, SPECIFICO 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." [139], [140] "That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." [141] 3 June 2018 [142] "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." [143] 20 May 2018 1-way I-ban [144]. 14 September 2014 TBAN from Ludwig von Mises and the Mises Institute [145]. 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. [146][147][148]

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.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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

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[149] 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”. [150]. 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)

Digression re: IP editors and their value in ANI discussions.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:41, 22 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. SnowRise let's rap 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. SnowRise let's rap 20:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: "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. SPECIFICO 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... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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)

  @Zaathras: - 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)

  @Zaathras: 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. ―Mandruss ☎ 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.

  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)

  Boomerangs for OP and Shibbolethink. SandyGeorgia (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🚐 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🚐 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.". [151]. 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

• @Objective3000: 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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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)

• @Snow Rise: 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. SPECIFICO 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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.[152] 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)

@KoA: 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 @Space4Time3Continuum2x: 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. SPECIFICO 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. SPECIFICO 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. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

KoA, "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: [153], [154], [155], [156]. 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. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are full and unedited quotes of what you wrote (bolding to emphasize by me):

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 ? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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 @KoA: 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. SPECIFICO 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. SPECIFICO 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. ––FormalDude (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)

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb, to address some of the statements you made in your !vote above:

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: [157][158][159][160]. 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: [161][162][163]. 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.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing issue from User:Comp.arch, Ignoring Talk Page Consensus

Hi, there's been a significant issue around User:Comp.arch ignoring the talk page consensus established on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely and then making highly disruptive edits that require combing through the article. (and can't be simply reverted due to conflicts)

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[164]]

A consensus was already established by a 50+ comment length talk page (and another talk section). With consensus both before and after Penny was charged. With the overwhelming consensus to include the name. They had no basis to make these changes.

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[165]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

They also broke WP:3RR today. Effectively they've been edit warring while others have been trying improve the article.

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[166]] [[167]] [[168]] [[169]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[170]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

Overall it's an issue of disruptive editing and WP:NPOV.

LoomCreek (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm involved as I voted in the RfC on whether to include the name, but I'm not seeing a particularly clear consensus (certainly not "overwhelming consensus") to include the name there. The more recent discussion has more clear support for including the name, but that didn't start until after Comp.arch's edit removing the name.

As for "removing a key detail" that Neely was choked from behind, the article still included that after Comp.arch's edit. Comp.arch removed it from the lead. Whether or not it should be in the lead seems to me a legitimate content question which should be discussed on the talkpage, not a matter for ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As for the key detail they did in fact remove it from the article bulk with a second edit right after the main one which I had to reintroduce.LoomCreek (talk)

Thanks for reintroducing it, it was a mistake on my part. I was fixing a "bad sentence" I left behind in my other edit, I honestly felt like I was quickly fixing grammar, so I used minor edit checkbox. The part, "from behind" is for sure true, will most likely be brought up at trial. Stating it with his name, what I was getting rid of, per WP:BLPCRIME, makes him look very bad. Without his name in the article I fully support having that phrase in (so my mistake). With his name in the article, then yes it's the truth, but then I'm not sure what to say, we are naming a person doing such apparently bad behaviour. I don't know if it's taught to the Marines to restrain people. It may be the best way. comp.arch (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And re. 3RR, the edit history of that page is pretty fast-moving at the moment, so it's even more important than usual that you provide diffs! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Our policy is very clear: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime

This comment is independent of any opinion on Comp.Arch's behaviour; he/she may need sanctioning.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to confuse things, there are now 2 separate sections on the talk page where editors are !voting

• the original 6 May RfC, never closed and still active - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name inclusion
• a new discussion at the bottom - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name of killer (again)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's my fault. In a bit of a rush to defuse what I sensed might become a heated situation, I acted too quickly. If any smarter folks have a good plan for combining or otherwise helping out, I would certainly be all for it. My apologies for the unnecessary confusion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

While I have recused myself from this for a while, since I have been arguing directly with comp.arch and didn't feel as though my opinions would be appropriate, it appears that in this edit, the user struck out another's comment because of, by their own admission, a dispute over policy interpretation. This, IN COMBINATION WITH their persistent inclusion of long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citations, a meaningful amount of which do not apply to the situation (though admittedly some could easily be misinterpreted) or have repeatedly been addressed and accepted, indicate a potential WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation.

Because of my closeness to the argument, I want to be clear that I am not accusing the editor of intentionally "not getting it" or text-walling to make replying to their posts difficult. I DO believe that they are being bold and adamant about their position, but possibly to the point of disruption. PriusGod (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citation" is at least partially untrue. I make a point of only citing policy. I've read some essays, do not cite them, nor I think guidelines. If I did it even once then you need to jog my memory. I did quote "Resolution 1003 (1993) Ethics of journalism"[171], if you had that in mind with essay. I believe you are in good faith, so please (also others) overstrike what might be untrue, e.g. "guideline/essay". comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you quoted any essays, but there were edit summaries and Talk comments in which you cited essays and guidelines. Regardless, policies and guidelines are not a strict hierarchy, and essays can be a useful way to demonstrate one's interpretation of a specific policy - treating them as though they are irrelevant, or that a policy is always stronger than a guideline and citations of essays have no place in policy disputes is a very effective way to build a lot of ill will towards yourself, and is the core reason why I characterize your behavior in this situation as wikilawyering. Once again, I believe that you have no intent to that end, but that is how your actions are coming across. PriusGod (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[172] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.

In NY Times "spent 15 months in jail, the police said" was in the article as some alternative to incarceration, and it's one of the things I changed, quoting the source, and got reverted back to that supposed alternative. I believe I've been improving the article at every turn, I often back down and keep stuff left out or such (seeming) misinfo to persist, to not revert too much. I don't believe I'm the most trigger-happy with the reverts. I assume WP:good_faith of all involved, but that is not assumed by me, or was put into doubt in an edit summary. I'm not sure it belongs there, but I immediately took note of it. On 3RR I see WP:NOT3RR: "7. Removing contentious material that is libelous [..]". In my timezone, I'm not sure I did many reverts per day. I often use revert to actually notify the other person if I believe mistaken or violating policy to give them heads up, as a courtesy. Everyone makes mistakes, if I did I apologize. E.g. omitting "from behind" wasn't actually my intention. I didn't recall that one, [EDIT: I see I actually didn'tDID to that, as misreported above about me. Thanks for pointing it out.] I spent a LOT of time on that edit (summary; that I felt very important), and others, looking stuff up. comp.arch (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with this editor but this... I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page. It's not comp.arch's role as an editor to strike other editor's comments because they disagree. This is bizarre behavior and I asked comp.arch to leave my edits alone. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note that you're citing #7 under 3RRNO, specifically the exception about "libelous" material - in terms of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, saying the man's name and noting that he has been charged is not libelous because it is truthful. That being said, I don't feel as though you were warring over that, anyway, just that the specific way you scrubbed his name resulted in very clunky grammar (and at times as-of-then unsourced additions). PriusGod (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, the claimed 3RR came before me reporting to oversight, but it was taken seriously (and the "murder" redirect dropped). I don't feel like the number of reverts in which 24 period is the most important matter (I realize it's a bright line), I'm not going to start counting, people will just need to be specific and I can look into it. BLP policy allows you to be bold when there is a violation, and I just believe I've been moving quickly. In some cases possibly too quickly, and BLP or NOT3RR may not always have applied, as any excuse. comp.arch (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comp.arch struck another editor's comments from the RfC yesterday (Sangdeboeuf's). I have restored and documented it here. This was three days after striking Nemov's comment and being warned about it.

I also believe that comp.arch's comments in this section and the associated edits to the main article are pertinent to this discussion. Combefere ★ Talk 19:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• I believe there's enough here to warrant some kind of sanction. The editor has been counting votes in that RfC, striking other editor's comments, and removing other editor's comments. It's clear there's a behavioral problem and I had hoped that this discussion would help deter future bad behavior, but apparently it's not happening. Nemov (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. The scale, scope, and contradictory nature of the disruptive edits — removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP, while at the same time persistently inventing POV-pushing derogatory language that violates BLP, without trying to build consensus, breaking 3RR, forcing other editors to create an RfC to respond to the disruptive edits, then flooding the RfC with wall-of-text and I-can't-hear-you type comments, and removing multiple comments of editors who disagree with them, after being warned to stop, all on a politically charged article about an ongoing event — stretch the limit of one's ability to AGF. But regardless of comp.arch's intentions, the disruption simply needs to stop. Combefere ★ Talk 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  "removing multiple comments of editors who disagree" is I feel the most serious untrue allegation here. I deleted ONE by accident, and struck out, i.e. overstricking, basically highlighted his comment, a disruptive comment because IT was disrupting the RfC process, while notifying that user. So how is two, multiple? "removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP", was that his name? Please be very specific in all allegations. comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  "So how is two, multiple?" I believe this is my cue to disengage. Combefere ★ Talk 07:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was doing my best to be polite and genuinely did believe at the time that the editor's behavior was simply overbearing and not malicious and warranted only a warning - but a second talk page comment removal, ESPECIALLY an opposing vote on an RfC is frankly beyond the pale. Not to mention that they said on their talk page they were refraining from participating in the conversation, then continued on. I agree with Combefere, AGF is strained here and the conversation needs to be allowed to continue without being interfered with like this. Edit 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC): I've addressed in my comment in the "Discussion" section below that I'm aware the removal was not intentional. If anyone is going to use my statements as part of their rationale for a !vote or an action, please read that comment first, as it affects what I've said about AGF in this situation. PriusGod (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I already explained here, the deletion of the second comment was (a glitch? ) my mistake.

Proposal: Temp block for Comp.arch

1. Bludgeoning discussion even after the ANI was filed.

2. Striking, modifying, and deleting other editor's comments.

Asking this editor to modify their behavior isn't working. I was leaning TBAN, but I'm not sure how it would be applied at this time. Given the number of edits that Comp.arch has made on that RfC a temp block would be wise for the editor to get the point. - Nemov (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging users from the above discussions. Nemov (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek @Caeciliusinhorto-public @A._B. @ Dumuzid @PriusGod @Combefere

Survey

• Support Editor doesn't seem to be learning a lesson and continues to ignore direction. Based on the comment below I'm not sure this is heading in a positive direction. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't want to spend time defending myself here more, just feel it might be part of the process. I want[ed] to edit; (e.g.) page on, presumed innocent, person, so he has a fair Wikipedia page (it still isn't). And I did, well still do, think the best way for a non-public/non-notable person to have a fair page, is to not have one in his name (well his name in it; before it named him basically in Wikivoice as a murderer), until found guilty (of his non-murder charge), where people are e.g. naming him a person doing lynching, from WP:UNDUE Twitter source. The news shouldn't have named him, but at least they do not include such an opinion, on their pages. Fo all I know they got his name from Wikipeda not the other way around. I'm thinking of the precedent. How low is the bar on WP: How minor does the charge have to be do add a person's name to WP? comp.arch (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above and below. Combefere ★ Talk 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support but would prefer seeking a TBAN or maybe PB because look at their block log and contribs - looks (to me) like years and years of careful editing with a single, temporary, 3rr block 9 years ago. One taste of the proverbial blood in a BLPCRIME case and they are editing up a storm. I am concerned that any further escalation in comp.arch's behavior, or any severe administrative action, would lose us an otherwise very valuable contributor. Nevertheless, the conversation is being disrupted. PriusGod (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have not answered for all the untruths in the original unexpected ANI. I'm not even sure if I'm expected to answer here. And now for this Proposal from Nemov:

Nobody asked me to change behavior (one allegation of not acting in good faith, then bam ANI; I assume good faith of all in 10+ years, and others of me until now)?! Is that implicit in ANI? Not sure what TBAN is.

2. No modifying of editor's comments; except that one time when you claimed BLP was a guideline, and I edited it to policy (I stopped even editing other's others typos, such as yours above [EDIT: My point was I would have, help others that way, no longer dare to even touch those]. That was the same edit I struck out your comment to make it obvious to you, and others, by notifying you so that you could simply fix it. I deleted one comment by honest mistake. If we're going to do an RfC (or ANI), bringing up policy then it needs to fair, not lies about it (I didn't claim you were doing that intentionally, but seems disingenuous what you're doing now). I've never participated in an ANI before, in my over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing, let alone mine, so do I need to read those policies too, or get a lawyer to defend, or just abandon Wikipedia?

Your incredible Support comment in an RfC with untruth that I struck out is here. I.e. "WP:BLP guidelines", no, they are polices. You point to an RfC with "No consensus to include for now." and you do not support doing the same, rather ignore that precedent, if you will, which was for a double murder of kids, rather than follow it for the non-murder (i.e. second-degree manslaughter; negligence), then following WP policies is too dogmatic! There's no consensus on including the name, there's actually non-consensus (3% against including by my last count), and also bias in the articlee.g. see here, I would claim I'm not the one with WP:NPOV, others are, and people, not just me, claim that.

1. I've participated in RfC, that was started after ANI (and almost stopped editing the article itself after ANI), there was no RfC or consensus before, none to ignore, I read all edit summaries and in case I'm reverted. Should I read talk pages before anyone reverts me? comp.arch (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in further discussing your simple content dispute grievances. You're still justifying your behavioral problems which only strengthens the case for sanctions. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Pointed remarks such as I stopped even editing other's [sic] typos, such as yours above (emphasis mine) are very transparently bitter and serve no purpose other than to antagonize or insult other editors. This falls especially flat when that comment, pointing out the typos of others, has a typo in it. Someone proud of their over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing should be aware how big of a no-no it is to modify another's talk page posts without permission. Without wanting to pick apart everything in this comment, I'd caution you that between your attitude and trying to get out of this squeaky-clean by only admitting the bare minimum fault, you're unlikely to get you the result you want. It's my belief that if you want to continue to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in the ways and places you want to, you would benefit greatly from a softened attitude and some humility. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I will admit all of my faults here, if that's the point of the trial here. I want the trial to be fair, people not misrepresenting what I've actually done. WP:NOT3RR also has other exceptions, e.g. for "bias". I believed I was doing a good job editing the article until LoomCreek stated he no longer believed in my good faith (in an edit summary). Have I done a single edit on the actual page since then, he (or others) disagree with? He followed up straight away with ANI. I believed he did that in good faith (and I thanked him for it), and I still believe he did that that. But I didn't see him bring up a point that is valid (at that time), me breaking a policy; or if he thinks so, which wasn't allowed by exception, so he was simply mistaken. I believe I've always backed down on editing the page. For the Talk page, have I bean obsessive, YES! This ANI didn't help with that. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Nobody asked me to change behavior" – I did, on 5/17. Nemov did, on 5/18. LoomCreek did on 5/18. PriusGod did on 5/18. A.B. did on 5/19.

After all of these requests to change your behavior, you have continued to overwhelm the talk page with walls of text full of misapplied links to wiki policies, and hyperbolic misrepresentations of other editors' comments. 72.14.126.22 had to ask you to drop the stick again today. Combefere ★ Talk 21:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to believe that it was an honest mistake to remove the other editor's talk page comment, but comp.arch, if you, a veteran editor with a decade's worth of experience and good contributions to the project, are getting so worked up that you end up accidentally deleting people's comments in an RfC, I don't think it is healthy for you to continue to be a part of this discussion. You've cited enough policy and made enough arguments for anyone who comes to the RfC to be convinced, if they ever will be. Do remember that much of (I am aware that that there some cut-and-dry rules) WP policy is not set in stone and not to be obeyed as law, and that the specific content policy that is in dispute at this article has a long history of being hotly debated and recognized as ambiguously written from both people who want it to be stricter and those who want it to be more lenient. PriusGod (talk) 23:55, 23 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Gog the Mild'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.--NØ 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.--NØ 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.--NØ 07:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that a two-way IBAN would be helpful for both of you. @Heartfox: 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.--NØ 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.--NØ 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)

@MaranoFan: 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.--NØ 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.--NØ 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.--NØ 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)

• 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. --Jayron32 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 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)

Sarah SchneiderCH

Sarah SchneiderCH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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, [173] 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 [174] 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 [175] 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 [176]) 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 [177], [178] and replacing scholarly sources they do not agree with with wordpress blogs [179]. 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 [180], [181], [182], [183], 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 [184], [185]. 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") [186], but even more concerning is replacing a good piece of writing with this badly sourced (and almost certainly copy-pasted) nonsense [187]. 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 [188] 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." [189]. 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" [190]. 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" [191]. 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 [192].

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). 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. [193]

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 [194] [195] I would first ask an admin to look at the source material for the quote in question [196]. I have already tried to explain multiple times [197] 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." [198]. 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#WHATIS) 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 [199] 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 Wikipedia: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[200], [201], [202], [203], [204], 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 [205]. This is why I reverted her. [206]. 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 (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, 0 explanation on the talk page. She also write misleading summaries, 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." (Wikipedia:PA) Red Phoenician (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia

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

Diffs:

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

Past incivilty:

• rude response to edit warring notice
• user complains of hostility
• personal attacks
• block skirting
• general warning
• more personal attacks
• incivility (NGS is no longer in good standing but still evidence of a long-term behavioral issue)
• recent uncivil editing summary

Dronebogus (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Your last entry under "Diffs" is expressly allowed per WP:REMOVED, "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages...There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so." No one is to be held under any suspicion for removing notices from their own user talk pages. --Jayron32 17:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I know it’s allowed, but deleting as many “bad” entries as possible immediately after I linked to them is a bad look. Dronebogus (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't a bad look. Warnings are not scarlet letters and people can remove them at any time. --Jayron32 17:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  That being said, the first diff is definitely problematic. It seems to have come out of left field, and a complete non sequitur, except to express some personal grudge with you. --Jayron32 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Admittedly, it was very tangential to the discussion, and I have made no attempt to restore the remark after DB removed it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not making an attempt to restore it is not the same as understanding what was wrong with it in the first place. Do you understand why you should have not said what you said? --Jayron32 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've had my own issues with Hemiauchenia in the recent past. Back in September 2022, Hemi removed the word "harassing" from a sentence about the discussion thread activities on Kiwi Farms, with the edit summary "Think this is more clear". I undid this, as I saw it as minimising the well known harassment that originates from that site. Hemiauchenia removed it a second time stating that the removal was not minimising the harassment as the words "harass" and "harassment" were used 30 times in the rest of the article. I undid it a second time, stating that it was again minimising the harassment from the site and also begging the question of what the purpose of the discussion threads were. Hemiauchenia then undid it one more time, stating that I had a complete inability to assume good faith of editors and that he had no reason to bother discussing with [me] further on the topic.

While I freely admit that I shouldn't have reverted after Hemiauchenia's second removal and instead should have opened a discussion on the article talk page, I nonetheless found at the time their final comment to be both an aspersion due to the implication that I assume bad faith about all editors, and antithetical to any form of discussion based consensus due to the finality of I have no reason to bother discussing with you further on the topic. I didn't raise it at the time as I didn't want to antagonise Hemiauchenia further, but as we're now talking about their conduct I believe this fits in with the broader pattern of incivility that Dronebogus is discussing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why this is being dragged up. I have no issue with the idea that Kiwi Farms is a forum that engages in harassment, and I think the current "facilitates the discussion and harrassment of online figures and communities" is a decent summary of the forum. I even added antisemitism related material from Jewish publication The Forward. My only issue is that I thought Kiwi Farms should be described encyclopedically as to the sources. I have no issue with your editing. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

For why I brought this up, the problem is as with the other diffs above, with what you said. You insinuated in an edit summary that I had an inability to assume good faith of any editors. That's a pretty strong aspersion to cast at a behavioural noticeboard, let alone in an article edit summary. You then closed the door on any further discussion on the merits of the edit you made at the time by stating that you had no reason to bother discussing with [me] further on the topic. Stating that you were not going to engage with a discussion on the edit is anthetical to the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS policy point.

The first half of that sentence is something you really only should state at a behavioural noticeboard, in conjunction with strong diffs. The second part is not really something you should ever say as it closes the door on finding any sort of discussion consensus on the merits of an edit or sequence of edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I admit some of my initial interactions were not ideal on that article, but I think just reducing my conduct to just those interactions you brought up is misleading, and my later interactions on that article were a lot more collaborative (e.g. talk page interactions in Talk:Kiwi_Farms/Archive_5), I want to re-iterate that my testy comments towards you are bygone, and do not reflect my current opinions on your editing. Thanks again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

To explain the context of what Dronebogus is going on about here, on Commons, Dronebogus uploaded self-drawn highly graphic nsfw artwork of anime Wikipedia mascot Wikipedia-tan, who is usually depicted as a cute little girl, which Dronebogus claimed was "aged up". In August 2022. I nominated this file for deletion, [207] and the file was deleted following the input of multiple pariticipants. I recently mentioned this during a file for deletion discussion, which Dronebogus has claimed was an attempt at hounding him. Other than reverting him from my talkpage with additional comments, I have made no further attempt to engage with him about the matter at the file discussion or restore the remark after DroneBogus removed it. As far as I am aware, I have not interacted with Dronebogus since the original deletion discussion until now.

As for the other incidents Dronebogus has brought up, it's relatively easy to cherry-pick the handful of testy interactions I've had with other users over years I have been active on Wikipedia and make my interaction record seem a lot worse than it is. I don't think my tone during these interactions was appropriate, but I don't think they are representative of the way I interact with other Wikipedians generally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The comment you note as "recently mentioned" is unacceptable in tone and context, however. It had no bearing on the discussion at hand, and only served to dredge up a past conflict for the sole purpose of insulting and embarassing Dronebogus about a months-old, unrelated manner. It was extremely uncalled for. --Jayron32 17:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have completely disengaged from that ffd discussion have no intent to further comment in it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I complained about it to you, and rather than apologizing you doubled down in the most backhanded way possible (by deleting it and leaving a cruel, insulting edit summary). That is not letting it drop. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia: Disengaging from it is not the same as expressing understanding that the comment was wrong from its inception, and should have not been made. --Jayron32 17:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like it may be unclear here, so I will clarify for the record that Wikipe-tan is a fictional character, meant to be a personification of the encyclopedia. She does not have an age, because she does not exist in the physical world. The sexual abuse of children is a serious issue of extreme gravity, whereas I would aver that some guy drawing a picture of boobs on the Internet is not. It may be tasteless, or out of scope, but I really don't think that it is worth digging it up and rolling around in it at such length, certainly not at an unrelated FFD and definitely not here. jp×g 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by Dronebogus's evidence here, especially how it started: If you do that I’m just nominating it as a copyvio. That said, I'd support a 2-way I-ban. RAN1 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have literally barely interacted with Dronebogus over my time of Wikipedia editing, so I don't think a 2 way iban is warranted. I think an informal "avoid each other, but no formal or self-imposed interaction ban" suffices. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I was actually going to request a mutual interaction ban. But Hemia’s personal attack was a pretty lame hyper-escalation reaction to a perhaps not especially tactful but not overly uncivil comment. Dronebogus (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Interaction bans are annoying for both parties. I'd rather we just agree to informally avoid each other and I will cease to bother you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is in essence what Hemiauchenia said in those diffs: "Hey remember when you drew those creepy lewd pictures of our mascot and everyone agreed they were terrible and sucked? Ps. Go away, I have no respect for you as an editor, and you are barely tolerated on this website as is." Obviously that's very out of line and in my opinion, deserves a formal warning or sanctions. Accusing someone of drawing "highly sexualised drawings of a character depicted as a minor" is a grave allegation. Serious accusations require serious evidence, and I don't see it. It's certainly possible to draw Wikipe-tan as an adult e.g.[208]. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I clarified in another edit summary on my talkpage that Dronebogus claimed she was drawn as an adult and that I was not personally accusing him of drawing child porn. However, current Wikipedia ArbCom member Beeblebrox said in the image deletion discussion You're basically making your own child porn. You should probably stop talking now. [209], and there were other comments by jps along similar lines. Rhododendrites remarked Regarding the "as an adult" part: While not child pornography itself, if you're inspired by a child to draw a sexualized grown-up version of them, that's still creepy as hell [210] Again, I would rather this matter just be dropped. I don't want to anatagonise Dronebogus further over this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not that you're bringing up old grudges or anything... Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the opposite of dropping it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I also am kind of appalled to know Beeblebrox is an Arb and making patently false accusations of pedophilia (“sexualized adult version of a child character” is light-years from child pornography no matter how creepy it is) Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the (implied) "is Wikipe-tan a child" question: the answer is sometimes. You can take a look at a gallery of the original artist's drawings here. In some pictures she is, in some it's ambiguous and in some, she clearly isn't e.g. [211][212][213] In my opinion [214] summarises it pretty well. Based on that I think it is somewhat unfair to characterize tan definitively as a "child character" and draw conclusions on that basis. I have no idea what Dronebogus actually draw as the file is deleted, but I doubt the "basically child porn" label was warranted, and that was probably conduct unbecoming from Beeblebrox et. al.. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

For ease-of-reference, and without broader comment on the merits, the relevant files appear to be: c:File:Wikipe-tan Nude.png, c:File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 sitting nude.png, c:File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 topless.png, c:File:Wikipe-tan Minna no Kisekae 2 nude.png, and c:File:Wikipe-tan Topless.png. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The ones with “minna no kisekae” in the name are not of my creation and come from the same set as this image. As for the others they were basically the same (i.e. very clearly an adult) Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Support heavy WP:TROUT to Hemiauchenia for making the comments here, and they should likely apologize for having done so in the first place. But what I overall see here is two editors who I have had very pleasant interactions with over the years, getting into a bit of a slap fight over trivial things and dredging it up/salting it into old wounds. Stop that. I don't think Dronebogus is wrong to be upset about it, but I also don't think this was worth an ANI complaint, and think they are, at best, lengthening the dispute by engaging with it. Hemiauchenia, you should also stop bringing up old scores in situations like this, as it should be very clear the consequences are hurtful to other editors like DB. And then, when faced with a situation where you have a choice between engaging with disputes that are likely not actionable like this, and leaving it alone to die on its own, I would recommend almost always to just stop commenting. That goes for both of you! And its advice I find very hard to follow myself, but it is good advice nonetheless. Can't everybody just play nice? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but how many times is Hemia going to do this before getting even a formal warning? These below-the-belt insults over petty disputes every few months need to stop. Dronebogus (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus just out of curiosity, do you honestly not think someone who bothered to comb through your contribs, missteps, and warnings over a long period of time could come up with a similar list of diffs? I've found the best course of action when encountering Dronebogus[215] to unwatch and move on,[216] and I don't support any interaction bans here. I support closing this thread with no action needed, and some solid looks in the mirror. I am grateful to finally know why I've seen that cartoon image on some Wiki pages over the years (now I know what it is, for what that's worth); I hope this thread has run its course. In my encounter with you, Dronebogus, you might thank your lucky stars that I chose to unwatch after reading the linked "prequel" explaining the background of behaviors, rather than pursue arb enforcement in the infobox case, because, simply not worth the time. Perspective, please, before bringing things to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m aware that my past behavior isn’t exemplary, but I’ve actually been put in line, harshly, for it, and don’t do it anymore. Hemia does the same exact bad things over and over and gets an informal slap on the wrist every single time. There’s a double standard going on here. Dronebogus (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... well, that sounds much like the same responses from you last December that led me to leave a Featured article I've followed and maintained for 15 years (I had a strong sense you did not see how you had poisoned that discussion, and others before it, and were unlikely to heed sensible and collegial messages from others). We all make mistakes on Wikipedia; so do you. Drudging up old diffs at ANI doesn't impress me unless they are really worthy of attention from admins beyond the peanut gallery. I wonder if you consider that using your Wiki-time making a nude picture of a silly cartoon, and then calling attention to that with an ill-supported charge of HOUNDING, is really the best use of ANI or anyone's time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You are also drudging up old diffs here. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you miss the point (spectacularly); the point being, anyone can dredge up a list of diffs on any long-term editor. Unless you've got something really damning, is this a good use of ANI? If you don't get along with an editor who you find irritating, move along. Wikipedia is a very big place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 22 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#Problematic reviewer, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text [217] [218] 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 [219]. User:Mr rnddude pointed out [220] 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 Ajpolino 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, ErnestKrause? ~~ 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., Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions), but every assessment rating below GA is open to anyone per the guideline at Wikipedia:Content assessment#Assessing articles. 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 Wikipedia: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

 I filed the below report shortly after Trainsandotherthings above, so am subsectioning this, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the eponymous subject of WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, 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, Thebiguglyalien, but the four other editors (myself, Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, and Chipmunkdavis) 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, Z1720 and Cecropia. 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, Mr rnddude 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

 Remark: 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 Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs), 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)

Block evasion at Talk:Windows 10 version history

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

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

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

The new IPs originate from Tunisia, like the previous IPs, though the city, while they repeat, often changes. They also canvassed a user into the discussion. While the edits in question differ, there appears repeated behaviour of going against consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 22:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The IP keeps jumping, so the .124 address is the one with the ANI notice. Callmemirela 🍁 22:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I messaged @ user talk:oshwa#IP range block in Tunisia that I leave edit summaries and that edits where focused on update windows 11 version history and other pages related to windows 10 version history primarily. The blocked IPs, on the other hand, as I can tell, leave no edit summaries, edit on TV programs and entertainment and have their edits tagged "REVERTed". I've no idea Y in the world this issue has been taken to the notice board. And, to be honest, I was the user who reduced pages like windows 8.1 and windows 11 by removing extra spaces and protection templates in addition. No other user complained to me about this. Y ®️ U the only user criticizing my editing behavior right now?197.238.245.211 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm one of the involved parties in this edit request, we have explained why we declined that, but ips are just submitting it again and again. Considering Wp:de, maybe we need a partial block. -Lemonaka‎ 23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've attempetted to convince those users multiple times that my proposed edits are based on previous consensus, not based on my matters of opinion, and that they have nothing to do with the visual appearance of the page. Currently, the article's size is 122,488 bytes as of this edit. Whereas this way without extra spaces and punctuations is 121,313 bytes. If anyone does not believe me there aren't any visual changes, then click/tap on that my mentioned revision and compare it with the official page visually like what I did.197.240.17.149 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Talk:Windows 10 version history for three days as a hint that your campaign must stop. First, saving a few kilobytes by removing spaces or whatever is not useful (make a proposal at WP:IDEA if you think the principle is worthwhile). Second, consensus is against you so bludgeoning the issue is disruptive. I will watch the page for a while and block anyone who is disruptive when the protection expires. Please ping me to the talk page if I don't notice a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Callmemirela, and Lemonaka, I will not surrender my comments as long as that replacement isn't made. If my requested changes are applied, then I agree to be 197.range-blocked for seven days. Deal, anyone?197.240.255.227 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Opps, this seemed to be WP:CIR and WP:IDHT -Lemonaka‎ 17:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@197.240.255.227 This is not a dealing place or a market, why you considered that give me a block then my changes will be applied? That's totally against current consensus. Lots of editors on that page told you it's useless to remove such spaces, why you still insist on it? -Lemonaka‎ 17:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Because, as I've mentioned many times tirelessly, to decrease the size of the article and prevent it from growing too quickly in the future as it gets updated. As according to what I mentioned somewhere above, if the official article gets to be replaced with this revision then a total number of 1,175 bytes would be removed. If anybody does this change, then please do not 4get to range-block me. However, as long as my requested changes remain not done, then don't consider blocking me.197.240.255.227 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't how consensus works. – Callmemirela 🍁 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Another instance of canvassing. This is getting disruptive and a clear case of IDHT. – Callmemirela 🍁 18:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@CallmemirelaWP:DENY applied, waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka‎ 18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Callmemirela, and Lemonaka, I will not surrender my comments as long as that replacement isn't made. If my requested changes are applied, then I agree to be 197.range-blocked for seven days. Deal, anyone?197.240.255.227 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Per below, I accidentally copied IP's comment and placed it below thinking it was the original. I'm striking it given it was my fault. – Callmemirela 🍁 16:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is never a deal. That's all, more trolling will give you longer block and no one want to make that changes. -Lemonaka‎ 18:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make that comment. I only made one above. Who on earth made a copy of my comment here?197.240.255.227 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure YOU did.[221] And I don't buy a Joe job when all contributions 9 from this IP are ideologically consistent. EducatedRedneck (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it was not me. I would neither make double comments on one page @ a time on 15:10 UTC nor copy and paste my comment. But now I know who did it and this proves everything.197.238.83.214 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying you never made any comment about a deal. It does seem that Callmemirela accidentally duplicated your comment. My mistake. :) EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Disruptive editing: mass replacement of "committed suicide"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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. – Callmemirela 🍁 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. Masem (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. Masem (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. — Rhododendrites ^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. Masem (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. Masem (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 P Aculeius 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)

@Damien Linnane: 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)

@Red-tailed hawk: 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)

@P Aculeius: 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. EEng 08:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi EEng. 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". EEng 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@P Aculeius and Zaathras: 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)

@P Aculeius: 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)

@Rockstone35: Have a read of a policy called WP:AGF. I considered it minor at the time since, as Jerome Frank Disciple 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.
  

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  striking, new response below. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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)

  @Rockstone35: 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)

  @Rockstone35: 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  By this count, closer to 300, and all marked as minor edits, no less. Ping @WhatamIdoing: 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. [222] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: 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)

  @SandyGeorgia: 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 [223]) 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. SandyGeorgia (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 HandThatFeeds and shibbolethink, 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 Colin. 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)

Damien Linnane 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: 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 :) SandyGeorgia (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 Colin and WhatamIdoing (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)

• @Damien Linnane: 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. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

For SPA/SPI attention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@WhatamIdoing: @Colin: @SandyGeorgia:. There's a brand new account, Commitment issues, which has been created for the sole purpose of mass reverting the edits [224]. 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a subhead to this section for quicker attention to likely trolling. SandyGeorgia (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. – Callmemirela 🍁 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. – Callmemirela 🍁 04:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've applied a mass rollback. This is blatantly disruptive. --Kinu ^t/_c 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 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." – Callmemirela 🍁 04:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have only made one revert per article. Commitment issues (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Commitment issues: 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 – Callmemirela 🍁 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. – Callmemirela 🍁 05:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Boynamedsue - WP:NPA and disruptive behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Boynamedsue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [225] 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 [226].

• Here is the first instance [227] 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 [228] 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. [229].
• Here, at around the same time, is a talk page warning about engaging in personal attacks [230]. They replied accusing the author of the warning of engaging in BATTLEGROUND behavior [231].
• Here they continue to press their belief that the AfD is tainted by the FTN post [232].
• Again, pressing the same belief with a longer post [233], while also seeming show a misunderstanding of dealing with fringe material on Wikipedia.
• Replying to a different editor [234] 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 [235]: However, the choice to link at that forum and nowhere else had a vote-stacking effect here.
• Presses the issue with still another editor [236]
• Here this disruptive behavior is noted for benefit of the closer [237].

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: [238]. 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. [239]

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 W: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. Heiro 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. Heiro 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'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'easter (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

What XOR'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. Heiro 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'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" [240], and who has used uncivil language to talk about another users work, classifying it a"piss-poor article".[241] Given your history of blocks for breaches of WP:NPA, I would be more circumspect. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Roxy the dog 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. [242] 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ErceÇamurOfficial (talk · contribs)

Persistent disruptive editing even after the user caught a 31 hour block last month. Most egregious example is that there was an RfCRM, 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 unilaterally 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. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Necrothesp, Jack4576, and AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Necrothesp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is regarding the AfD Wikipedia: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 @Necrothesp:. 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 @Jack4576: decided to delete based on a lack of sources, [243], but Necrothesp told them to ignore policy and guidelines,[244] and Jack followed their advice and changed their vote,[245].

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. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I felt at the time that Wikipedia: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"[246] 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. ― "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. ― "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. ― "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)
    • @J947: 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|they|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#Jack4576's repeated poor conduct on AfD. The link is @WP:RFAR#Ban of Jack4576 from AfD. 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)

• 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. ― "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)

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)

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. --Jayron32 17:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is shades of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#BLPs at AfD. 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. — 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. --Jayron32 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JML1148's Wikihounding - Proposed interaction ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ANI Withdrawn

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is acceptable for users to nominate articles at AfD. William Street Bird is very poorly sourced and seems to be on its way to deletion. As for this article, we'll see how the AfD goes. Constructively cleaning up Wikipedia by deleting poorly sourced articles is not GRAVEDANCING, and it is not unacceptable for JML1148 to do so. An interaction ban wouldn't do anything anyway. If you're topic banned from AfDs, how would an interaction ban prevent JML1148 from nominating articles you created at AfD? I recommend this retaliatory ANI filing be closed. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"poorly sourced" (?) It contains two references to law journal articles that discuss the topic at length

Seriously questions abound as to your competence in parsing sources Nythar Jack4576 (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I said William Street Bird was poorly sourced. I haven't examined the other article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Given Nythar's point about an interaction ban not preventing targeted deletion nominations, I propose an alternative measure be taken; appropriate to address this form of WikiHounding Jack4576 (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BOOMERANG has to be considered here. Jack made a single comment on my talk page for me to stop harrasing (which is a false statement; I have nominated two articles of his for deletion). This isn't WP:GRAVEDANCING, as what I did (look through his created pages) is made clear in the essay that it isn't gravedancing (quote: "Going through the pages created by an editor who was blocked or banned for, or who was later discovered to have been engaged in, disruptive editing related to content in article space and improving their articles to meet Wikipedia standards and policies. Where this is not possible they may still of course be nominated for deletion.") I think it is Jack that has gone beyond the pale here, making false allegations of harrasment and seemingly not learning after the first AN/I thread. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are trawling through my articles, nominating them for deletion, without my ability to participate in the relevant AfD discussion

  Worse, the articles you are nominating are clearly within guidelines, as the well-sourced Companion rule (Australian Criminal law) article demonstrates

  If this isn't gravedancing, pray tell what would be

  How about you just take a wikibreak for a bit and treat my articles as you would treat the other editor's on this site

  It is not only the above two articles, an analysis between our accounts show you have been wikihounding me for a number of days now Jack4576 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  My ban was for AfD participation, it was not for "disruptive editing related to content in article space" Jack4576 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was quoting WP:GRAVEDANCING there. Note the the last sentence of the quote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Could you provide diffs of said conduct? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  You also have been trawling through GA assessments; and when I was active at AfD, you were WikiHounding me there all throughout the discussion taking place Jack4576 (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I reassessed a single GA assessment, and that came from the suggestion of VickKiang. The first AN/I discussion was not WP:WIKIHOUND, as it was on a single discussion, was constructive, you were not followed between pages, and it was not done with the intention of distress. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Propose Trouterang or Warning. First, some context I didn't see brought up here explicitly: JML1148 was the user who started the AN/I thread through which Jack4576 was topic banned from AFD. With that in mind I think it no large leap in logic to deduce that this filing is absolutely retaliatory. Jack4576 was TBanned from AFD for disrupting AFDs, and this AN/I is essentially an attempt to further disrupt AFDs by stopping someone they disagree with from participating in AFDs. Judging by this morning's ArbCom appeal that was opened and swiftly retracted by Jack4576, and now this AN/I, I think it's safe to say that Jack4576 isn't 'over it' yet, nor have they accepted that the community, the core of Wikipedia, has decided they should take a break from AFD. This was itself an element of the thread they were banned because of; They rejected community consensus in favor of what they thought was right. I believe that emotions are running hot, which is to be expected from people passionate about Wikipedia, so this further battleground behavior deserves a big wet trout as a warning to knock it off, cool their head, and either take a wikibreak or evolve and contribute constructively elsewhere. If they continue to thrash about and target the 'culprits' of their block, then we can proceed to further sanctions. But I don't think a full BOOMERANG is necessary at this time... even if they already insulted someone's competence in this thread. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  How much longer do we need to put up with Jack’s NOTHERE attitude? In just the past 48 hours we’ve had BLUDGEON, IDHT, ASPERSIONS, BATTLEGROUND, and retaliation. At this point I’m also beginning to suspect a problem with WP:CIR. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:D47:EB1E:4BF3:B8C (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have no issue with JML1148 participating in AfDs, I was concerned that my law articles were genuinely being hounded; as I am proud of their contribution to the encyclopaedia

  I accept upon a closer look at the edit record that this ANI was premature

  I have withdrawn it now and I apologise Jack4576 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Here, Jack continues to cast aspersions, accusing editors he disagrees with of feeling the need to sabotage the utility of WP as an information source for trivialities. He also refers to an active policy as making this encyclopaedia worse because of the legalistic over reliance by deletionists. Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  It may be beneficial to expand Jack's topic ban to "Deletion, broadly construed". BilledMammal (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to be a part of a greater trend of Jack4576 shotgun-blasting political or internal-WP RFC !votes in quick succession. The problem I see in this is that most of these are single sentence !votes, cast so quickly from one to another that I refuse to believe they are actually researching the topic and reading the discussions before they add theirs. Especially since some of these RFC contribs [247] [248] [249] really are just pure votes with no comment substance to them. All but one of these come from one to five minutes after the last. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  [358] I took the time to read Wes Sideman’s arguments before contributing my opinion

  [356] & [357] are incredibly simple.

  Should we include more information in political info boxes? Yes

  Would the american national anthem article benefit from the lyrics being included? Yes

  One doesn’t need to read a dissertation to form an opinion on those. I don’t see the issue quite honestly.

  Re: Nythar’s comment above, I did not cast aspersions toward a particular editor. (what is the issue?) It’s fine to oppose a policy as written in anticipation of how it will be interpreted.

  Jack4576 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  So you aren't assuming bad faith of a few named editors, just editors of a certain group in general. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is not fine to accuse other editors, whether individually or as a group, of sabotage. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm equally concerned by their RfC comment in the middle of that run, at Talk:2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia#RfC:_Mujahideen_in_the_2001_insurgency_in_Macedonia, made within two minutes of their comments at the Star Spangled Banner and Neo-Confederates discussions,which was an entirely useless comment that suggests they haven't read the discussion, with similarly fast participation later on in the day as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef of Jack4576 - Jack is taking up too much of the communities time with his continued BLUDGEONING and failures to get the point. The aspersions of sabotage show an unwillingness to cooperate or self-reflect, qualities which go a long way on the project. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a fan of 'Votes for Blocking' discussions, but Jack should realise that at this point their plan to exhaust the community's patience in order to gain free rein to dictate our inclusion policies is only half working: they are about to exhaust the community's patience. — Trey Maturin™ 17:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Mine's already totally spent just reading these two threads. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• It would be nice if JML would wait at least a week before nominating any more of Jack's articles for deletion. That said, JML's request for a re-evaluation of Jack's GA review of How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations was completely appropriate. Jack -- if you can't view that type of thing as "advice" rather than as an "attack", you are likely to end up blocked. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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... LilianaUwU ^{(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)

Gondolabúrguer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Called me a "Communist militant" Ertrinken (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional info. This guy is a crosswiki vandal Ertrinken (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is enough for a cross-wiki ban. It's time to report to the global administrators. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dinoz1: I completely agree Ertrinken (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"sai minion" is a term used by Communist militants in Brazil and which Ertrinken used to revert editions in Allan dos Santos and Nikolas Ferreira.

See minion's use by youtuber Felipe Neto here: https://twitter.com/felipeneto/status/1585707311091183616

Ertrinken tries to avoid editions on articles-hagiographies, showing her intention to disperse any link between biographies of Catholic personalities recognized as holy, thus dispersing the biographies. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

He has just broken WP:3RR Ertrinken (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Again and again Ertrinken (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ertrinken

Ertrinken is reverting the See also referring to the List of Catholic saints from Brazil, something which she and others also tried to do at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I've never been blocked here, unlike you, that have been blocked three times. You are repeating the same abusive pattern you had on Portuguese Wikipedia, this is unacceptable. Ertrinken (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to block a See also, as if it was a tremendous crime to link hagiographies in one article! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

... and that's a content dispute, which needs to be talked out at the appropriate talk page. It is in no wise a valid -- or sanctionable -- complaint at ANI. Ravenswing 15:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

They want to block me because of See also. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No one has mentioned "see also" in this discussion, we're talking about your cross-wiki disruptive editing. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yet she denounced me because I added a "See also" in 150 articles! Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Gondolabúrguer, kindly refrain from continuously repeating the same statement. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Global ban necessary?

Gondolabúrguer has been disruptive editing on multiple wikis, and has multiple blocks on different wikis. Is it necessary for a global ban to be put in place? Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC

Support

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

You are complaining about this: there is an ideological evidence, as written in your editions - your persistence at blocking an article about something that you dislike, "Catholic saints", See also -, and with a "sai minion" phrase, written twice.

Then you are reported and claims that the notice is a "harassment".

Actually, you have been harassing me and plays as a victim. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Read before commenting please. Repeating this again, no one is talking about your "see also" feud. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The militant lady has reverted +30 editions because of See also. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We get it. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ertrinken Hi, please take a look on m:Global bans for more information. Please open a RFC on meta if you really want to enact a global ban. This user cannot be global banned now for they are not indeffed on two projects. -Lemonaka‎ 19:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Thanks. He will probably be undeff by pt wiki comunnity on the next days Ertrinken (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed means indefinitely blocked. However, Their block on ptwiki community is a short time block, so GB isn't applied to them. -Lemonaka‎ 19:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Oppose

Comments

If you believe that is required, you'll want to request that (with diffs) on Meta. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume that may be the case. I'll see what other editors think of the proposal. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Your block log shows much more than that. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You are cherry picking only to attain the prohibition of a See also (!!!!!).

It is the Wikipedia standard to permit and stimulate the inclusion of a See also, if the article is linked.

Again, to be clear: you want to block me because of a See also. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is trying to block you for "see also". We are talking about your cross-wiki block log. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ertrinken is trying to block me for adding a See also at every article here: List of Catholic holy people from Brazil.

That means: she wants to prevent the list to be linked. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is only one of the reasons. There are lots of other reasons why people want you blocked. Take a look at your block log. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No. I request this block due to this user disruptive behavior, for calling me a communist, for his harassment on my talk page and for breaking WP:3RR Ertrinken (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

+ Cross-wiki abuse Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"sai minion" https://twitter.com/felipeneto/status/1585707311091183616 Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking Look: a militant woman in Brazil, who edits with a Leftist phrase "sai minion", is trying to block me because she does not want a See also in every article of this page: List of Catholic holy people from Brazil

The same happened in Portuguese Wikipedia. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm writing an email for Wikimedia Stewards. Best regards! Ertrinken (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ertrinken, enough is enough, it's time to end this pointless discussion. Gondolabúrguer should be getting globally banned, which has been supported by most of the people in this discussion. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked I have indeffed Gondolabúrguer until they explain (properly) what they are doing, which can be done through an unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Well, it looks like there are legal threats being thrown about over at the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Talk page access (and email) removed. I think we're done here, unless anyone else has anything useful to add. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can't wait for the parliamentary investigation about... checks notes ...social media links in a Wikipedia article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gorgon Slayer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

• (edit conflict) Blocked for 1 month for WP:EW. I will note, Brandmeister, that you were getting rather close to the same; revert warring is not the proper way to handle these things. --Jayron32 16:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  It should be noted that it appears that Gorgon Slayer has acknowledged the block without contesting it. (they are allowed to remove the notice from their user talk page, but I wanted to make it clear they were notified, in case anyone followed up with this and thought I hadn't left a notice). --Jayron32 17:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  And I think we're done here: [250]. Indeffed now, TPA revoked. --Jayron32 17:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I find those outbursts to be a lot more fun when I read them with an outrageous French accent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Especially when directed at silly English kuh-nig-its--Jayron32 17:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP making controversial edits related to the Greek Genocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 176.220.235.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making controversial, NPOV-violating edits related to the Greek Genocide. Their edits have been things like adding "alleged" before the link to the article ([251]), as well as surrounding a reference to the genocide with quotation marks ([252]). I have warned them to a level 4 warning, but they kept going. interstatefive  17:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with what I've done, Mr. "neutral"? According to you, holding the Turkish side is bad, but taking the Greek side is good. funny point of view. 176.220.235.29 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That only seems true if you label the consensus among non-Turkish and non-Greek historians as the "Greek side" rather than the neutral side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:PlanespotterA320 and aftermath

user:PlanespotterA320 and their sock user:RespectCE created lots of hoaxes about Russians and Ukrainians, previous discussion is on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive347#PlanespotterA320_/_User:RespectCE, 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|they|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'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|they|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 [[253]] project. An edit summary search [254] 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'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|they|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)

New user behavior at New Spain-related AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

You may read what I reply to, instead of quoting the responses without what they are answering to. If you go pass the line, I will reply in the same tone. If you want to held somebody accountable, look at those who I'm answering to (repeatedly) as well. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, no, it is not trolling. I'm open to change the name. So therefore, no, it was not made with any intention to troll. The name just describes what the article is about, and yes, that description is long. It can be improved, and I have said I'm open to do so if any good suggestions appear. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, it isn't actual topic. You slapped disparate things together under a broad umbrella and tried to pass it off as an article. The article will be deleted, there's no averting that now. Also, some advice - head to WP:RENAME and pick something sensible that people can actually address you with. IMO, the present choice is not in the spirit of "usernames must not be disruptive". Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly already addressed, no point on addressing. Read, if you feel like repeating the same as your peers would change the already sustained answer. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have reported the username to UAA as I believe it is indeed disruptive, and certainly far from conducive to building an encyclopedia. Patient Zero^talk 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance providing guidance to User:Thewriter006

Thewriter006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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¢ 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: [255]. @Thewriter006: you need to stop editing and read Wikipedia: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)

Jabril Peppers BLP violation edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have a problem with an IP being dedicated since June 2022 to adding potentially defamatory text to Jabril Peppers. It has been a slow-motion edit war for almost a year, and a request for page protection was denied. The IPv6 2601:8C:4780:9A0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is continually changing, so no way to communicate with the editor. I'd like to request someone block that range until communication can be established, and inform the editor that "WAGS unfiltered" is not a reliable source, and cannot be used to substantiate potentially defamatory information on a BLP. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I might also suggest that all the edits made by this range (which have already been reverted) be revdel'ed. The information seems to originate from a post by the purported former partner on a membership-only forum. It might even be true, but we have no way to substantiate it. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross wiki abuse and sockpupetting - Muzemberg and GuydeBerg

• Muzemberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GuydeBerg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Muzemberg and GuydeBerg have been blocked in WP:FR for sockpuppeting on subjects related to the ECLJ [256]. 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 [257]. 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 GuydeBerg is obviously recently active, Muzemberg has not edited here in three weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This sounds more appropriate for WP:SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 24 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:

• ResearchedEditor100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked by Salvio giuliano in January as a UPE/CU block)
• SoftHusky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sunshine1287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RomiPatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PowerUpMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MontDuo12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pathofkarma/Archive)

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)

• @Bbb23: 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)

@QuicoleJR: I have sent some to paid-en-wpwikipedia.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)

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

• Shomada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

• 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.: [258], [259], [260], and most recently [261] and [262].
• In other cases they introduced undue prominence to Hagras in the body of the article ([263]) or added disproportionately long quotes from his work ([264]). In at least one of these cases, they also removed templates and other material without reason ([265]).
• 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 [266], [267], [268], 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).

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)

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)

User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization

I’m not heavily involved in the MOS:CAPS discussion for sports pages, but I ran into this editor a few months ago attempting to make capitalization changes to baseball articles. This isn’t a topic I feel strongly about and on merits Dicklyon may even be correct. The issue is Dicklyon’s WP:BATTLEGROUND edits on this topic. Others can speak more specifically, but capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. In the current Hockey RfC, Dicklyon asked for a WP:SNOW close after four days when there was still ongoing discussions and even did a close request after five days. Dicklyon lacks the temperament required to find a consensus on discussions about capitalization. I was pinged a few days ago when Dicklyon drafted a self report so I’ve decided to bring it here.[269] - Nemov (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, capitalization is a topic about which I have strong feelings, and yes I asked for a snow close of that RFC, and yes I drafted a self-report (aiming for AN, not ANI, since there's no ongoing activity of relevance). Just waiting for that RFC to close. If the decision is to grant a hockey-specific exception to MOS:CAPS, I'll chalk that up as a loss; but it looks to me like that idea has been roundly rejected. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I read over the Hockey RfC and I'm not seeing a problem that requires intervention, administrative or otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: This ping of yours is very non-neutral canvassing. If you'd ping the rest of the participants in that RFC, that would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Those were participants in the Project that were discussing bringing an ANI case who have a longer history on this topic. If you wish I can alert the entire project. That's within the guidelines. You pinged several of us with that draft. Nemov (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH; it’s only natural that Nemov pinged those of us frequently involved in the project and as a result having to frequently deal with your overzealousness. The Kip (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

We bar canvassing for the precise reason that it tends to be effective, and making consensus-based discussions a numbers game clouds the issue. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then that list at the top of WT:MOSCAPS needs to be removed permanently. It's clearly intended as soft canvassing. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's a neutral centralized listing for everyone (i.e. a noticeboard) of discussions involving the site-wide guideline in question, and it serves the excellent purpose of countering in-wikiproject groupthink that in previous times was abused to thwart guidelines applying to particular topics, sometimes for years at a time and to great deals of WP:DRAMA which we now largely avoid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Related thread from last year: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Dicklyon. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is related in that I've been fixing over-capitalization for a long time, and every now and then someone (typically a topic-area fan, such as tennis in that case) objects to implementing what we have a huge consensus for, as represented in MOS:CAPS. It did all get resolved in favor of lowercase, and I did the work to implement the decision after that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's related because it's about your continued uncollaborative bludgeoning behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  User:Nemov seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Dicklyon, in my experience, displays just the right temperament to shepherd through changes to capping in line with our style guides. He has long experience in the area, and approaches it professionally. This thread is entirely unnecessary and a waste of admins' time. Tony (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I guess this makes sense why no one wanted to go through with addressing the issues. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think we addressed all the relevant issues pretty thoroughly. I got accused of bludgeoning in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  A shamelessly biased sampling of comments from that thread: ...the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. And: Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. And: I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. ... De[c]apitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. And: It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight to the point of their own alleged demoralization, against the better judgment of the rest of the editorial pool, just to get their way on a capitalization pecadillo in a pet topic, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. WP does not exist as a forum for Usenet-style "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" deathmatch argumentation. If some fan of hockey or trains is actually convinced they have a good argument for capitalizing something that the guidelines say should not be capitalized, they can go make a case at WT:MOSCAPS for a codified exception. What they can't do again is wage an 8-year disruptive campaign like the olden-days version of WP:BIRDS did. The birds fiasco is nothing at all like the example you imagine it to be. It should have resulted in a series of desysoppings and bans, and was actually a good argument to just end the wikiproject system entirely. (But this ANI isn't the place to get into the details of that sordid history.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like WP:RM, and open discussions on broader issues at an appropriate venue, like WT:MOSCAPS (and even at venues where opinion is apt to be stacked against him, like WT:HOCKEY). The only interesting thing about this ANI report is that it's part of a long pattern of trying to abuse noticeboards to "get rid of an opponent" by editors who are bent on pursuing the WP:Specialized-style fallacy to over-capitalize things that pertain to their pet topics. One of the main reasons we have site-wide style guidelines and naming conventions is that various vociferous participants in topical wikiprojects (especially but not limited to sports ones) again and again refuse to approach capitalization and some other style matters with civility and with our broad readership in mind, and perpetually engage in special pleading fallacies to try to get weird exceptions that cannot be properly supported by independent reliable source material. That is the actual behavioral problem. PS: I just remembered I addressed pretty much this entire thread in an essay a long time ago; the most pertinent part is WP:DISBELIEF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[270][271][272][273][274][275][276] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[277] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[278] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[279] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[280] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  And "I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY" is doubly absurd. Pages are not magically immune to policies and guidelines based on their age, or we simply would not have policies and guidelines; they'd be completely useless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, I see we're repeating Talk:Red_Line_(MBTA), Talk:Boylston Street subway, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_31#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations... I'll note that I disagreed with Dicklyon in that last thread, and I still think I was right — not that MOS:CAPS should be ignored, but that its proper application would imply capitals where he doesn't want them. But the conversation was so unpleasant that I gave up... which seems to be how consensus about these (largely frivolous) matters is determined. My condolences to those reopening the old wounds. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, those are great examples of how I work. Sorry you had disagreed on some points. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Those "great examples" sure look like trainwreck threads to me, no pun intended. It's hard for me to see why you would be proud of them. I know that just one of them was enough to convince me that there would be no point voicing my opinion on any capitalization matter where it might happen to disagree with yours, no matter what evidence I could bring to support my position. Congratulations. XOR'easter (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is just what I was getting at above. Every wikiproject "camp" that is an intense fandom of something (sports, train-spotting, anime, military, video gaming, etc.) thinks it should be able to do whatever it wants, and will sometimes go to great lengths to trainwreck any attempt to get community input that is contrary to the fandom's specialized-style fallacies. Dicklyon consistently presents well-researched evidence of what independent sources are doing in the aggregate (which is what we want to see), and is met with special-pleading exception waving drawn from sources that are not independent of the topic. This has been happening for a decade and it needs to stop. Fandom-internal sources (like "officialese" and other specialized types of writing) do not dictate how WP is written. Such "conversations are so unpleasant" not because of Dicklyon at all. He's almost unbelievably patient with the invective hurled at him.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this characterization of the dispute in which I was involved in just about every way. I'm not a part of mass transit "fandom", for starters, and the Boston Globe is not "officialese". XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's a reason that MOS:CAPS opens with "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and doesn't say "...that are capitalized in a unanimity of sources". The fact that you can dig up an exception doesn't change the overall statistical picture at all. But a recurrent, small group of editors never seem to understand this (or pretend they don't). Every single one of these debates has "well, what about [example here]" comments as if providing one counter-example magically waves away the overall lower-case pattern. It's almost unbearably tedious in its fallaciousness, and is a stick that needs to be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that Google n-grams survey only "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added) is, in my view, highly dubious. Outsourcing our thinking to search engines is the kind of nonsense we reject in notability discussions, and it's not the end of the debate in style issues either. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  They survey published books, which is as close as we can get, and it certainly beats people holding up one example of upper case here, and one example of lower-case there, until someone gets tired and quits. If the community did not consider n-grams valid tools for WP:RM purposes, then they would not be used and relied upon at RM, yet they are, on pretty much a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not all published books are reliable or relevant. It's pretty clear that "the community" does not uniformly consider Big Data-type approaches the be-all and end-all answer for style purposes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. At some point, one ought to consider the possibility that if there is fruitless antagonism in one specialized topic after another, the common denominator might not be the specialist editors. XOR'easter (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating the argument you already made isn't an argument itself. Anyway, at least we're getting back on-topic in the second part: These discussions and their results are not fruitless at all, but produce a more consistent reading experience for our readers, and an overall general reduction in the amount of "style fighting" over time because as each such discussion closes it adds to the precedent stack. What is actually fruitless is all the hatred hurled at Dicklyon, for simply using the process he's supposed to use and opening the kinds of discussions he's supposed to open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  If a "precedent stack" has ever actually inhibited Wikipedia editors from sparring, I've yet to see it. And if that were an accurate description of his actions, many fewer people would have been exasperated over the years. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  As you've only been here since 2017 and missed most of the "bad old days" of style-fighting, I'm not surprised. Anyway, we'll just have to see whether this ANI comes to your conclusion, or mine (and not mine alone) that the exasperation is self-generated by WP:OWNish over-capitalization zeal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No surprise the usual suspects showed up to support. There must be off-wiki coordination between these guys. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry.

As for Dick, his constant failure to distinguish between uncreative proper names and mere descriptions shows a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar and shows he shouldn't be involved in this crusade of his in the first place. Not to mention the bludgeoning of discussions, inability to accept that others who disagree with him do care about articles (and thereby failure to adhere to the policy of WP:AGF) and practice of continuing to make edits and move pages even after objections have been raised and discussion is still ongoing are incredibly un-collaborative behaviors. He needs to learn that he's not automatically right.

Plus his "evidence" usually consists of an n-grams search. A product of Google. His employer. That's a conflict-of-interest issue. One that needs to stop. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I watch Dicklyon's activity closely, because he is so frequently attacked, along with all of MoS and the editors who work on it, by the same little WP:GANGs of topical-wikiproject blowhards. The "usual suspects" here are you and the few other anti-guideline activists. You don't need to agree with Dicklyon and his understanding of English. You need to stop denying the evidence he brings to bear. Properly constructed n-grams are precisely the kind of evidence that is of use in such debates. If sources independent of your pet topic are not overwhelmingly capitalizing something, then WP will not either. See first three sentences of MOS:CAPS. And "areas they've never edited before" is just more WP:OWN nonsense. Typographic cleanup across the entire encyclopedia, regardless of topic, is an activity for anyone, and it is precisely because of wikiproject-originating "special exceptionalism" that such cleanup is so often needed. PS: You clearly have no idea what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The "jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals" is enabled partly by the sort of "notice board" mechanism at the top of WT:MOSCAPS that we started several years ago, in an attempt to balance the WikiProject notification systems that brought so many topic fans to conversations. Yes, there are a few of us "usual suspects" that pay attention there; not very many, sadly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that thing is soft canvassing and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeat: [281].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been accused of "a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar" before. I actually write a lot, including a book and many peer-reviewed articles, and have been praised for how precisely I write. I just got a review back on an article I submitted, which included "The results and proofs are quite technical and the author is nonetheless precise in their treatment." Obviously, that's math, not English proper name issues, but still, I do know what I'm doing, grammar wise, and style-wise, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So, unless you come here brandishing a hammer and nails, your not welcome. Sounds like more WP:OWN. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry. This is a serious allegation. Do you really wish to make it? If so, you need to substantiate it. What, in the fundamentals of English grammar is an "uncreative proper name" or for that matter, the converse, a creative proper name? WP:AGF does not mean somebody has to agree with your opinion because you think you are right and they are wrong and how does this allegation of a COI remotely coincide with WP:COI? Overall, this post is just saying, leave our patch alone, we know best. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a Bing alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Topic-ban gaming by Jack4576

Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 Nythar 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, Wikipedia: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 El C rather than taking unilateral action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 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. — 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. — Trey Maturin™ 22:12, 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)

  Aaaaaaannnd the bludgeoning of the commenters with nitpicking requirements for ever more granular definitions begins again. Such fun. — 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:

  The article does not cover the majos aspects, it tells us absolutely nothing about its creation, background, place in the oeuvre of the author, printing history, translations, ...? Never mind its place in a broader history of similar works, possible inspirations, ... All we have is plot and reception, which are important aspects but don't give a reasonably complete overview of the subject at all. I believe the topic doesn't merit a GA designation as it stands.

  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 [282] 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 ^(T) 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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 Rosguill, 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 Rosguill's proposal) and lengthen current block. I am arguably being fairly lenient here but I, with hesistance, weakly concur with MaxnaCarta and Curbon7 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 MaxnaCarta 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 | 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)

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 Special:Diff/1156737118. 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 fell free to correct them if wished) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:52, 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 think you're mistaken. Jack posted that comment at 10:57, 24 May 2023, while your comment was posted at 14:59, 24 May 2023. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:46, 25 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|they|xe) 02:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: 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|they|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)

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. LilianaUwU ^{(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|they|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 [talk · contribs] 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|they|xe) 08:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Roman Reigns Fanboy

So me and this user (Roman Reigns Fanboy) had a dispute on the Emirate of Afghanistan talk page.[283] 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,[284] saying they had no regret doing it.[285] while also saying stuff like "I don't care if you take offense". [286]

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" [287] "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). [288]

I did notify the user of the ANI, here. [289]

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)

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 this edit. The IP has been blocked twice before. See also this edit. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 05:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 25 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)

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)

BLP issues with User:HonorTheIsland

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[290][291], general disruptiveness/vandalism[292][293][294][295][296], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[297], and other BLP violations[298].

Despite all this, they again moved Draft:Ilay Feingold to the mainspace, with the incorrect claims about winning a senior title (with a citation needed tag), and with the incorrect edit summary of "Perform requested move, see talk page", which they also used when they moved Draft:Tai Abed, someone else's unsubmitted draft to mainspace.

Some help to get this user to change their approach, stop making BLP violations, stop using false claims in edit summaries, ... would be useful. Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at one of these page moves where the editor said to see a talk page discussion and, believe it or not, the article had no talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 25 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)

IP refuses to discuss

103.168.75.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 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)