Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Is it appropriate for an Admin editor to create an article just to put Nazi ancestral claims into a BLP?

    [edit]
    1. User:Chetsford sent Christopher Mellon to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mellon
    2. I remade it from scratch, it passed AfC, and is live at Christopher Mellon.
    3. User:Chetsford created Matthew T. Mellon today, apparently about Christopher Mellon's grandfather.
    4. Turns out that his grandfather liked the Nazis in the 1930s.
    5. User:Chetsford added this to the BLP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435
    He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American. Matthew Mellon taught American Studies at the University of Freiburg in Freiburg, Germany throughout the 1930s. According to Princeton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast", though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934, Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming".

    Please see: Talk:Christopher Mellon#Extended negative family history is inappropriate for a WP:BLP. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not exactly the sequence of events as they occurred. However, since the editors here are capable of reviewing it for themselves, I won't trouble the noticeboard with corrections. (For background, this appears connected to a long-running issue over the last several weeks in which UFO enthusiasts have been vociferously objecting to the addition or deletion of content about flying saucers and flying saucer advocates (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1186#Chetsford_Lying, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#IP editor WP:NOTHERE, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#I've been banned from reverting a Wikipedia page back to its original status before it started being brigaded. The genesis issue originated with an off-WP campaign ginned-up by the radio show Coast to Coast AM.) [4] Sorry for the ongoing bother. Chetsford (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to do with you seemingly creating an article specifically to work familial Nazi allegations into a WP:BLP article against policy, as an Administrator. It's also the exact sequence of events. Your apparent ongoing war with the Internet is irrelevant, and between yourself and the Internet. This is about the WP:BLP article at Christopher Mellon that you sent to AfD (and won), the remade article I made that passed AFC, your sudden creation of Matthew T. Mellon, and this edit of yours to insert the word Nazi repeatedly and six total pro-Nazi citations about a WP:BLP subject's long dead possibly non-notable ancestor. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, okay. Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a question for WP:ANI. Or take grandpa to WP:AFD. I'm not sure your concern belongs at BLPN. But since you're here, I don't see any WP:UNDUE for a grandfather's mere mention. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the grandfather notable though? Other than being part of a family line and a known sympathiser? – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV apparently. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Take the grandfather to WP:AFD if you believe that they are not notable. This doesn't belong at WP:ANI. TarnishedPathtalk 04:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    does blp apply for this article? WP:BDP stipulates anyone born after 1910 is covered and this mellon that chetsford created was born in 1896 and died more than 30 years ago. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yo Bluethricecreamman, it's the article on the younger Mellon to which BLP is being claimed, as although his da died over 30 years ago (and was a Nazi sympathizer), his son is still with us, and to be fair, not a Nazi (of course, the article doesn't suggest that he is). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "born after 1910": That's a misreading of WP:BDP. That section addresses cases where the subject has not been confirmed dead, in which case there is a safe assumption that if the person would be over 115 years old, they can be assumed to be dead unless there exists recent (within 2 years) evidence that they are alive. Where a subject has been confirmed dead, BLP stops applying within 2 years after death--the period it applies after death is indenterminate but roughly bounded by the two-year limit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is appropriate for editors to make new pages. These types of questions belong at WP:Teahouse. 12.75.41.48 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, this is pathetic. Make the article, sure. Shoehorn negative information about a subject's grandfather, using sources from the 1930s, into a BLP that you AfD'd? The most gentle, sweet, charitable reading here is that Chetsford has a dangerously poor understanding of WP:SYNTH, and should probably be given some sort of topic ban to prevent other BLPs from having such content introduced to them. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chetsford has begun a RFC on the WP:BLP page to include details of the BLP's dead ancestor's pro-Nazi views. See here:

    Talk:Christopher Mellon#Should appositive descriptors be used for Matthew T. Mellon?

    I have no idea what to do here; this seems wildly wrong and disruptive. Please help. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not an RfC. It's just a run-of-the-mill discussion. You reverted an edit I made, so I opened a discussion about it. That's how things usually work here on Wikipedia. You can read more about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle here. Chetsford (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an RfC, but it's damn close to one. And it's structured in such a way that if you get the result that you want you can make the edits that you want, and if you don't you can quietly ignore it. I'd drop this if I were you, it's not going to end anywhere good. misunderstood post and thought the discussion had been opened at BLP noticeboardBoynamedsue (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's structured in such a way that if you get the result that you want you can make the edits that you want" Um, yes, I guess? Sorry, I'm not sure where the scandal is here. Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we return to the question, why are you investing a massive amount of time and effort into getting the word "nazi" into the article of a not-nazi?.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "a massive amount of time and effort" Are you referring to the one edit I made? It wasn't much time or effort at all! Chetsford (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are editors expanding articles on a platform in which that is generally encouraged? Is that the extent of your question? TarnishedPathtalk 04:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, it is extremely unedifying to see an admin create an article, based on two 1930s newspaper stories, with the sole intention of getting the word "nazi" into the article of someone who appears not to have made any far right utterances in their life.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "an admin create an article" This is true. "based on two 1930s newspaper stories" This is not. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't see intent, we can only see the edits. FWIW, I don't think someone's grandfather being a German man in the 1930s who liked the Nazi party really qualifies as "a sensational ancestral claim" does it? There's nothing sensational about it, unfortunately. I assume it's pretty common, so that element of the arguments against inclusion doesn't strike me as useful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments for or against textual content are ongoing at Talk:Christopher Mellon. For much the same reason you just stated, the information is WP:UNDUE in the BLP but fine to link as a mere mention. JFHJr (㊟) 05:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There look to be only two Reliable Sources giving definite WP:SIGCOV on the page, both newspaper articles from the 1930s. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency article (also from the 1930s) is borderline. The rest of them are either passing mentions or not RS themselves. Why on earth did you make this article?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Why on earth did you make this article?" Why on earth haven't you nominated it for deletion? Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I saw it 15 minutes ago, and the 15 minutes it would take to nominate for AfD is more time than I wish to spend on a dead nazi-sympathiser of no historical note. Now, can you answer my question, why did you spend several hours writing and (nearly) sourcing an article on this individual?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "why did you spend several hours writing and (nearly) sourcing an article" You're asking why I'm a Wikipedian? Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not. As you well know, I am asking why, of all the possible articles you could choose to create, you created one which is based on 90-year-old newspaper articles and allows you to add the word "nazi" to a BLP of a person you really don't like. Do you want to try answering?--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am asking why, of all the possible articles you could choose to create, you created one which is based on 90-year-old newspaper articles" One possibility is that I extensively contribute BLPs about early 20th century academics from Pennsylaniva, such as Henry Lamar Crosby, Herman Vandenburg Ames, John Musser, John Nevin Schaeffer, etc., etc., and Matthew T. Mellon is yet another early 20th century academic from Pennsylvania. I suppose, another possibility is that my years of content creation on this topic is all part of an ingenious, years-long conspiracy I've concocted that culminated today as part of a diabolical plot I've been jealously harboring. So I guess one of those two? Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to clarify, as that is not exactly a straight answer, you maintain that the fact you recently tried to have the Matthew T. Mellon's grandson's page deleted, then created a page for Matthew T. Mellon, then added the word "nazi" to the grandson's page are three completely unrelated facts?--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of conspiracies, maybe it's time for @Chetsford to step back, self topic ban, whatever, from conspiracy/fringe topics. Fighting their promotion should not include seemingly illegitimate means. JFHJr (㊟) 06:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still waiting to hear what the "illegitimate means" are! So far the working theory seems to be: Chetsford has created articles on early 20th century Pennsylvania academics for the last five years; he nominated Christopher Mellon for deletion and it was deleted at AfD; then more than a month later he created an article on an early 20th century Pennsylvania academic Matthew T. Mellon and it's not notable but, despite its clear and obvious non-notability, for some reason no one can nominate it for deletion. Also, we thought he started an RfC -- and somehow that's bad -- but then we realized that he didn't actually open an RfC so had to strike that.[5]
    I was honestly less confused about the previous theory where I was supposedly the former CIA director [6] secretly editing Wikipedia! LOL. Anyway, this has been fun, as always. Chetsford (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if my using the TB word planted a seed that grew into... below. My comment was informal and I didn't mean to be vaguely accusatory. So here: it looks like a revenge addition to me and others, and some editors would prefer you try to be a little more dispassionate about WP:UNDUE content, when a wink (wl) suffices as more than enough of a middle finger. The self TB suggestion was not my idea of a community invitation to discuss it. Sorry. It was just for you to consider. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember this case from the article on James B. Conant. Accepting scholarships from Germany was a big issue at the time, because Harvard's governing Corporation did not want it made an issue, but the student body was increasingly anti-fascist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea why the word "admin" is in the section header, since their status appears to be irrelevant here. In the end, I think this is simply a content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely a content dispute, their adminship is entirely irrelevant here. Also seems like it doesn't belong at ANI and contains a good amount of bad faith assumptions and aspersions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      contains a good amount of bad faith assumptions and aspersions (immediately above). That's for sure. ANI is inappropriate for a content dispute(s), and comments by the OP and some others are far too personal. I suggest that this be Closed with no action before the attacks against Chetsford get people blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Or a one-way IB for User:Very Polite Person, who seems to have had a beef with Chetsford ever since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sol Foundation. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just found this. I agre. When I edit or create articles I don’t do it as an Admin. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because BLP vios are serious, and even more so when they're done by admins. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP vios are serious. Adminship has absolutely nothing to do with it. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ADMINCOND is a thing. Also we expect admins to uphold policy, not violate it. Don't kid yourself into thinking that because it doesn't involve admin tools, adminship is irrelevant. It's very relevant. Admins are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a straightforward way to adjudicate this complaint, but I'm not going to take the time to do the research to figure it out; perhaps VPP or Chetsford will do the research to bolster their claims/defense:

    Either the RSes about Christopher Mellon mention that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer, in which case that detail would be an WP:ASPECT that should be included in the Wikipedia article, or the RSes about Christopher Mellon (not about his grandfather) don't mention the grandfather, in which case the edit special:Diff/1290142756 adding that information to Christopher Mellon's article is a major violation of WP:ASPECT (and thus NPOV), as well as WP:SYNTH (part of OR), and since it's undue negative material about a living person, it's a serious violation of BLP.

    I'm not sure what the RS say about it, but if RS cover it then Chet was correct to include it and VPP's accusations are false. If the RS don't cover it, then Chet has some explaining to do as to why they're SYNTHing BLPvios, because ORing BLPvios is a red line. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Either the RSes about Christopher Mellon mention that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer,
    I've never seen any such source, have you @Chetsford:? The only Christopher Mellon mentioning source I've seen that gets into his grandparents is a reference by name to his maternal grandfather from a different family name. I have seen not one source that gets into "Christopher Mellon" plus Matthew T. Mellon plus Nazis. All of User:Chetsford's Matthew T. Mellon Nazi-sources are about Matthew T. Mellon--not Christopher Mellon. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree with Levivich's anaylsis, with one exception: even if RS's about CM discuss MM's Nazi sympathies, that paragraph was a pretty big UNDUE problem. It looks like there's consensus on the article talk page to remove/reduce it, but I don't think it's crazy to bring this here; adding that paragraph was a dick move. I realize Chetford has been attacked by UFU loons off-wiki (and maybe on-wiki, I'm not up to speed), and he's been generally on the right side of anti-loonness, but this paragraph was deeply uncool. I think it's worth warning Chetsford to be much more careful with BLPs. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Levivich—the sources on C. Mellon indeed do not mention this aspect of his grandfather, so it is a very clear SYNTHing, and I would be interested in reading Chetsford’s response to this matter, without deflecting to more easily answered questions, like whether MTM is notable (which is not the substance of this ANI posting). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who has not been following this dispute, and whose only interest in the topic is Christopher Mellon's role as an early founder of USSOCOM, I don't see the issue here and am very confused as to why there's a dispute. Christopher Mellon himself is clearly notable. His role in creating the legislative and legal framework for the modern U.S. special operations establishment is not in dispute here at all, and would justify an article even if he had no relationship whatsoever to UFOs or his family's lineage. He's also the scion of a one of the most prominent families in the U.S. (on the level of a Carnegie, or an Astor, or a Prescott/Bush -- families whose connections with Nazi Germany are certainly explored on the relevant articles as well). There appears to be no serious dispute about Matthew T. Mellon's Nazi support, the claims of which were prominently covered by reliable sources contemporaneously at the time as well as continued into modern day. So I'm baffled as to what the supposed issue is here. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You're baffled? Oh well, perhaps someone else will read my comment and be able to parse it. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment was posted while I was drafting my response; timestamps are hard, I know...⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that is indeed my mistake, the indenting implies you're responding to me, but that's not your fault. The way the "reply to" tool handled that led me astray. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (actually, the timestamps would indicated that I'm right, but as you say, they're hard. and I'll accept the possibility that you hadn't actually read my comment.) Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, my comment was edit-conflicted, so I just refreshed and reposted (without having seen your response) and did not remove the outdent (I've always interpreted an outdent template as "Let me step back from this threaded discussion and approach this from some different angle" rather than as a reply to someone). ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be no serious dispute about Matthew T. Mellon's Nazi support, the claims of which were prominently covered by reliable sources contemporaneously at the time as well as continued into modern day. So I'm baffled as to what the supposed issue is here.
    This edit by Chetsford: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290142756&oldid=1290132435
    George W. Bush may have familial ancient pro-Nazi history in his "bloodline", but control-f shows no "nazi" text in his page, or Early life of George W. Bush, or Bush family. All of Chetsfords sources about Matthew T. Mellon and Nazism are about Matthew T. Mellon--not about Christopher Mellon. No one objects to a link to Matthew T. Mellon on Christopher Mellon--I added that myself after I saw the new article. It's that wild edit jamming 6+ "mellon family are nazi boosters" by User:Chetsford into Christopher Mellon that are the problem. Massively WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you would have much stronger case if Matthew T. Mellon weren't objectively notable... People are allowed to improve the encyclopedia out of spite and in the context there where the subject is arguably only important because of the family he was born into then a good deal more family history than we normally include is relevant. I also fail to see what Chetsford being an admin has anything to do with it... And I would point out that if they just wanted to shoehorn that info into the BLP they didn't need to make an article for Matthew T. Mellon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      the context there where the subject is arguably only important because of the family he was born into
      I'd say Matthew T. Mellon is notable more for family, but a trivial review of Christopher Mellon shows he's not notable because of his family, but for his careers, works, and only partly his family. Does this edit look WP:BLP and WP:DUE compliant? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      However you want to cut it Matthew T. Mellon is in fact notable. Christopher's career appears to be largely dependent on his last name, without it he doesn't get any of those cushy positions. He isn't for example qualified in any way other than his last name to serve on the board of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Without those family contributions he has no career in the senate, he had no expert qualifications... He was a "expert" senate staffer because of his last name. Matthew and Christopher are both nepo babies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No offense, but nothing you wrote is relevant to whether it is appropriate to put an entire paragraph into a living WP:BLP article, 100% sourced from articles not about the actual WP:BLP subject (who has not one single source that is about/SIGCOV the BLP subject that gets into allegations of Nazi support by one of his ancestors) into that BLP's article. In what way is it WP:BLP compliant to drop a paragraph into a given BLP's article about how his meemaw was a Big Nazi Fan, when meemaw being a Big Nazi Fan has nothing to do with the notability of the BLP themselves, and no RS even touch the BLP's meemaw being a Nazi fan, that are about the BLP? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You said "he's not notable because of his family, but for his careers, works" but I see nothing in his career or works which is seperate from his family, he only has those roles because of his last name. Yes it appears WP:BLP and WP:DUE compliant. Whether or not its ideal is an entirely different question and I would have written it very differently, but that doesn't mean that anything besides my way is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Nepo baby" discussions are an off-topic tangent; arguably a WP:BLP violation themselves.
      It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not this edit and attempts to put data that Christopher Mellon's grandfather supported Nazis in the 1930s, before Christopher Mellon was born, 100% sourced from articles not about the WP:BLP, are a rules violation. Your or my view on the people involved or their merit is utterly irrelevant. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Its certainly common to use sources about a subject's family that do not mention that subject for background. It is not a bright line rules violation, which is why you find yourself having to argue that multiple things which are not violations are together a violation... And I can see it that way, but I can also see it the other way and I'm just not seeing any really good reasons to go against WP:AGF on this one... As I said before if Matthew wasn't actually notable and Christopher's biography wasn't dependent on his family name you would have a strong case here... As it is I suggest you drop the stick and see what you can work out content wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Your views that Christopher Mellon is only notable by his name or through his 30-year career because of his name is your personal opinion and has literally zero WP:RS that is able to WP:BLP compliant source this in any actionable way. There is no value in your continuing to bring it up.
      The question is literally: is it a WP:BLP violation to drop an entire paragraph into your WP:BLP, if it turned out your great-grandfather was a Nazi soldier, and it was all about how he was a Nazi soldier, with all the relevant pro-Nazi sources predating your birth by decades? Do we do that for other WP:BLPs, whose ancestors were Nazis? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No that would not be a BLP violation. Please do not make this personal, I encourage you to return to being polite and civil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is, as mentioned, a content dispute. The "admin" bit is simply brought in as a cudgel in an attempt to scare people with. ANI does not adjuciate content disputes. This should be closed and discussion continued on the article talk pages, and if that does doesn't resolve it, other forms of WP:DR should be attempted. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      BLPvios are not a content dispute, they're a conduct dispute. Levivich (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree that this is not a simple content dispute. Should any editor - let alone an admin - add detailed and negative content about somebody's relative to that person's BLP article? The answer to me is no. Saying that Woody Harrelson's father was a hitman who was in prison is fine but sufficient. What Chetsford added here is entirely inappropriate and concerning. GiantSnowman 19:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I wonder if there really is a policy ambiguity (or more like, a "gap") here on WP:BLP and I'd be curious if I've either simply missed the relevant line, or if it doesn't exist. So, the top of WP:BLP unambiguously states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." and cites to footnote B, which quotes relevant portions of the Rachel Marsden case and the Manning case. The Marsden quote says Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry." The Manning quote says "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.". Between these three statements (which as best as I can tell are the only ones that cover the applicability in scenarios where the article subject is not the person about whom the claim is being made) there appears to be a gap -- all three apply to statements made about "living people", even if not the subject of the article. But in this case, Matthew T. Mellon is not a living person, he died in 1992. The statement in question is about Matthew T. Mellon. So what we have is a statement made *on* a BLP, that is not about a living person, but whose existence carries an unspoken implication *about* that living person. As written, it would seem like this is not actually covered by the BLP policy and probably needs to be made explicit. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As written, it would seem like this is not actually covered by the BLP policy and probably needs to be made explicit.
      Do you mean the scenario of putting negative information about dead ancestors into a living BLP, where it can cause inference the BLP is somehow tied to their ancestors acts/beliefs, is a problem that somehow escaped WP:BLP all this time? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the information makes absolutely no direct reference to the living person, it seems like yes that may be the case. As strictly written, the policy appears to only cover statements that mention living people, material about living people, or that are references to living people. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If the information makes absolutely no direct reference to the living person, it seems like yes that may be the case
      User:Chetsford to establish Matthew T. Mellon as a Nazi enthusiast in WP:BLP Christopher Mellon used sources from 1938, 1934, 1934 again, 1935 again, 1935 a third time, and finally 1950. Given Christopher Mellon was not born until 1957 or 1958 and not one single WP:RS seems to go anywhere within a light year of "Chris Mellon's grandpa liked Nazis in the 1930s," is this edit by User:Chetsford done here in this link a violation of WP:BLP? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In my opinion, a bright-line reading of WP:BLP would say no. It might be a poorly written paragraph, a WP:COATRACK for sure, but "He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American." does not violate BLP; and the subsequent sentences are all exclusively about Matthew T. Mellon, who is long dead. Regardless, they all appear to reflect what their attributed sources say, rather than what you're presenting as a conclusion of ""Chris Mellon's grandpa liked Nazis in the 1930s". If you think that's contrary to the intent of the BLP policy, I'd refer back to my suggestion that perhaps it needs to be made explicit whether the policy covers *implications* about living people that can be inferred from statements about long-dead people. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      perhaps it needs to be made explicit whether the policy covers *implications* about living people that can be inferred from statements about long-dead people. Which opens the can of worms of WP:SYNTH... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on User:Swatjester's remarks here, I have raised this there for discussion as well:

    It seems there remains no consensus if this addition is a WP:BLP violation, a content issue, or a conduct issue. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • A new front has been opened at the WP:RSN. A Polite Person... isn't. They are weaponizing these processes. This, plus the continued aspersions against Chetsford, demonstrate a battleground approach that is unlikely to change without sanctions. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 21:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That was opened at the suggestion of User:Swatjester. I'm here to build articles, as I have been. This entire WP:BLP headache has been a disruptive headache from that. Apparently my crime is building a thoroughly rigorously sourced article that I'm trying to push to GA and FA, amongst all the other articles I've been working on? What exactly would be I sanctioned for? Being more efficient at rules-compliant sourcing than some other editors? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested that the point about ambiguity in the scope of coverage regarding statements exclusively about dead people on an article about living people, should be brought there for clarification. I was not suggesting anything about *this* particular dispute needed to be brought there. This is a completely generalizable issue; this dispute is simply an example case.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if we've reached the point of protective actions as your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior seems peculiarized to me for now (e.g. "accept... the rejection of your position" [7], "admit you lost" [8], "Do you agree to my terms?" [9], "You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity" [10], "you and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors", etc.) I assume that's because I'm the only person active at these niche articles and your ire will be turned against anyone else who joins, but I can't say that for certain, of course. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why didn't you link that last one with you and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors, where I actually praised you, told you you're a better writer than I am, and asked you very openly to explain why these sorts of things keep happening, and my basic point of view, and to try and understand why you and other people have managed to spectacularly confuse not just me, but other people as well?
    -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1290324194
    How come? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we've descended to the level of attacking people based on their usernames. Not cool. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, this situation is very nuanced with regard to the implicated policies, and I don't know if there are any strong policy violations, let alone one justifying community action or sanction, but at the very least (and beyond the merest shadow of a doubt) this is a very bad look, Chetsford. Given the timing and nature of your involvement in the younger Mellon's article, and how you characterized it during your deletion efforts, it is pretty hard to swallow that your creation of the elder Mellon's article is utterly unrelated. And your extended zig-zagging and evasive back-and-forth with Boynamedsue above comes off as so disingenuous, passive-aggressive, and gamesmanship-like, that I have a hard time characterizing it as anything other than an attempt to gaslight. Not for one second do I genuinely believe that your involvement in the earlier article and the editorial disputes concerning it had no impact or involvement in your decision to create the article on the grandfather and then leverage his Nazi affiliation back into the article on the grandson. I believe in AGF, but what you are asking from us there would require something closer to willful suspension of disbelief.
    So, did you violate policy in any of this? Probably not: I think you are likely safe in a policy grey zone here. But this behaviour is more than a little attackpage-adjacent, and this sort of thing could easily lead to people perceiving you as capable of making editorial decisions for very petty reasons. Honestly, as at least one other editor here has suggested, I'd seriously consider taking a step back from the conspiracy-theory subject matter for a hot minute, as we sometimes see this kind burn-out over-reaction from editors working to fight misinformation in that area. And look, I get it. If this really is related to the recent cluster of disputes over UFO "whistelblowers", know that I looked in on those matters last month and was blown away by the ultra high density nonsense that was being peddled. But if this is the kind of tactic you are going to bring to bear against the "True Believers" in those disputes, you are currently not in the right mindset for that kind of editorial work and will be more of a hindrance than a help to the process of pushing back against the crankery. SnowRise let's rap 02:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "to create the article on the Nazi grandfather and then leverage his Nazi affiliation back into the article on the grandson" That never happened. For your edification, I explain the correct sequence of events here [11], in one of the numerous other noticeboard board and Talk page accusations with which the OP is tying me down (as did his now-departed predecessors in this campaign).
    But, though your comment is factually incorrect, it does underscore that the tactic of flooding the zone with creatively ginned-up noticeboard filings — as a kind of heckler's veto — is effective to the extent that it occupies editors time on noticeboards, and keeps them away from policing the insertion of hoax flying saucer content into our encyclopedia (e.g. Chris Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency" [12]). Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact chronology of when you created the moments-apart article on the older Mellon and when you introduced his Nazi links into his grandson's article is entirely incidental, as I think you very much know. The point is that you undertook both actions about a month after being thwarted in deleting the article on the grandson, as part of the broader fight on the UFO content. As with your responses to other inquiries above about the timing of your actions and their apparent motive, this feels like a willful attempt at muddying the waters and is very much not helping your case. It feels like you think if you throw up enough corrections on minor, irrelevant points and pedantic wikilawyering defenses, you can run out the clock. But it's extremely obvious what you did here, and why. So just don't do it again? Nobody is suggesting sanctions against you, so these rhetorical ploys are pointless, and the more you treat us like idiots and try to exhaust scrutiny, the more people are going to remember you for this episode--and less because the original activity was super egregious (though it did obviously demonstrate poor judgment) and more because of the cageyness. SnowRise let's rap 03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the more you treat us like idiots and try to exhaust scrutiny" Whoa. Is that necessary? "a month after being thwarted in deleting the article on the grandson" You continue to play very fast and loose with the facts of this case, and I'm sorry to call you out on these errors but since they're false accusations you're making against me I feel an indulgence to do so. No, I was not "thwarted". The article on the grandson was, in fact, actually deleted by decision of the community at AfD [13]. VPP then undertook significant research and determined he could resurrect it. He contacted me to ask my input and I stated I had no objection to him recreating it [14]. So, no, no one was "thwarted". Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am aware of those facts as the OP laid them out very clearly in the first few lines of their complaint. But choice of wording aside, you surely understand why you are getting pushback on the fact that you have tried here to frame your actions regarding the article and content concerning the grandfather as purely coincidental and unrelated to the earlier disputes, when there's just so much context and clear indication that is not the case? SnowRise let's rap 06:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I understand is that two editors have claimed Matthew T. Mellon is a not notable attack page. But that, for some inexplicable reason, no one has nominated it for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I for one am not convinced it isn't notable. In fact, when I looked at it, my take was that it was an edge case, but may very well pass GNG. That's not the concern for me. The concern is the backdrop for your decision to make that article and the injection of the Nazi element into another article where it didn't belong, in apparent furtherance of a contest of wills that you were having over that article and related subject matter. You truly don't understand why so many community members see that as a little shady, or at best a poor exercise of judgment? SnowRise let's rap 07:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly agree that Chetsford needs to step back from woo-adjacent topics. To argue that Christopher Mellon (sourceable from the Guardian + NYC alone) does not get WP:SIGCOV in RS, yet then to create Matthew T. Mellon based on 3 century old news reports is a worrying example of doublethink. An editor who pretends not to understand questions then finally throws around accusations of conspiracism to those who suggest three of their actions are linked, is becoming a time sink.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chetsford can still be useful. I don't think they deserve a topic ban, but of course restrictions can be made about their edits, i.e. you have to clearly spell out the rules they have to abide by. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Chetsford's handling of the situation makes me uncomfortable. Take a contrary example. Henry Thynne, 6th Marquess of Bath was, among other things, famous for his collection of paintings by Adolf Hitler. This is well-known and undisputed. We don't mention this fact in Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath, probably because no source has identified any relevant connection between the father's beliefs and the son's biography, to say nothing of any of the grandsons, including the current marquess. If I'm being uncharitable, it looks like an attempt to poison the well. At best, it's undue. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Chetsford's handling of the situation makes me uncomfortable." Mackensen -- can I ask you to elaborate a bit on what, specifically, makes you uncomfortable? I inserted five sentences of content into a 2,000 word article (three sentences of which, involving Matthew Mellon's scholarly work, doesn't even seem to have scandalized anyone). Twenty-four minutes later that edit was reverted. A Talk page discussion ensued. If you can be more specific about which part of that creates discomfort for you I can try to be more attentive to errors moving forward. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an unserious reply that makes me question your judgement further. You should consider stepping away from this topic altogether. Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford: I've always been a fan of your RfC closes and have appreciated you often being a voice of reason in discussions where many other users were being less reasonable. Here, though, I have to agree with Mackensen that your judgment is clouded. I understand that you're in a shitty situation with this whole UFO debacle, but I would expect any admin or otherwise experienced user to understand why the content you added is problematic. More importantly, I'd expect you to understand it, because I've never had any association of you as someone who doesn't know up from down when it comes to BLPs. Comments like the above don't change that overall impression, but do make me think you're getting too deep into this controversy. At the risk of stating the obvious, BLPs are a contentious topic area, and you're currently on a trajectory where that would come into play, I think. So I join Mackensen in encouraging you to step back from UFO-related BLPs. Whatever edits you want to make here, if they're worth making, someone else will make them sooner or later. If no one else makes them, maybe they weren't worth making. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I'll abide by any sense of the community, and I appreciate you laying out this case so well. I am deeply uncomfortable, however, with WP succumbing to a heckler's veto, which is what has occurred. There have been wave after wave of IP and freshly minted editors who have very overtly coordinated off WP with the stated intent of getting "Chetsford banned" because they have been led to believe by their leaders that I am uniquely trying to suppress the truth about flying saucers. This is the seventh noticeboard or Talk page discussion in two weeks that have been opened about me. It started when I attempted to police the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia (and which continues to be firehosed into it; see my aforementioned example of just yesterday in which the OP inserted the claim that Christopher Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency" [15]).
    While I am happy to respond to good faith noticeboard discussions, by any good faith reading this one was ginned-up from the simplest of content disputes: two sentences of a BLP edge case that was reverted by another editor and then immediately moved to Talk page discussion. Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles like this happen by their dozens daily on WP and no reasonable editor would ever deign to bring it to ANI.
    The flying saucer community is, frankly, less organized than other cultic groups. Seeing how this played out makes me deeply concerned for our editors working in adjacent areas if simply using a bevy of IP and battleground editors to create enough noise and sparks is all it takes to sideline the lucid and open fringe areas to guru-directed content. Chetsford (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If you did not edit-war about violating WP:BLP, it is not much of a transgression. Occasional mistakes are allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chetsford, I trust much of your characterization of the situation you have been dealing with, and indeed have myself seen a recent glut in misinformation and conspiracy theory content pushing concerning UFOs myself, even though I don't actively edit or concern myself with this area. So genuinely, I'm sorry you're having to deal with that, and thank you for your work in trying to keep some of the more concerning of this content out of article space. But the issue in the present moment is that the immediate concern is not 'ginned-up'; you really did do a problematic thing, and it involves content that is only tangentially related to the UFO area, which underscores just how much these bad-faith actors have gotten under your skin with their campaign, thereby compromising your approach. You're not presently talking to those SPAs, but rather your fellow WP:HERE community members, and there's a clear consensus that a backdoor assault on a BLP subject is not the right way to try to counterbalance the efforts of a bunch of credulous nits to lionize that same subject. Indeed, the conspiracy theory prone minds feed on and recruit off of that sort of thing. SnowRise let's rap 06:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even within this very thread there is disagreement about whether biographical information about a relative is permitted in a BLP. There was no brightline BLP violation, no 3RR, not even a 1RR. It was the most mild and routine of content disagreements being reasonably discussed at a Talk page. In no circumstance would this ever be brought to ANI - particularly from an OP with a documented history of battleground behavior [16]. So we have an extremely unusual ANI filing set against the backdrop of an off-WP campaign to create as much sparks as possible for the explicitly stated purpose of having editors who are policing the insertion of hoax content "banned". Frankly, the very existence of this thread transgresses the UCC. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, personally I have been at pains to be clear that there isn't a brightline violation here. But you're an experienced community member and an admin: you know as well as anyone that these issues are not always as cut and dry as whether someone can make a case for you violating 3RR or a specific piece of verbiage from WP:BLP. The absence of those things does not mean that important principles are mot at stake. IMO, these people have you so twisted up from their harassment that they are now effectively weaponizing you against yourself. And I think you'll see that once you have some distance from this situation. I'm going to leave it at that, because clearly I am not convincing you of anything, so I'll have to hope someone else does. SnowRise let's rap 08:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Re including the sins of the grandfather, a point missed above is that a reliable source would have to describe how that stain influenced the life of the article subject. The grandfather has an article, so pile the muck on him in that article. Do not use another article to list the grandfather's problems (WP:COATRACK). Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There are number of different things going on here, and I'll try and summarise:

    Is Chetsford being hassled by UFO-supporting editors? Unquestionably.

    Has Chetsford handled himself okay with disputes from this group? Yes, although his level of humour and sarcasm might not be to everyone's taste.

    Is the content dispute at question (the locus of which is this edit) a serious policy violation? Probably not, though it's not necessarily a good idea. I could go to Prince Harry and write "Harry's great-great uncle, Edward VIII, was a Nazi sympathizer[1][2]" and then argue it doesn't meet the letter of WP:BLP because 1. The sources (just about) link Harry, Edward and Hitler, 2. Edward and Hitler aren't living people and 3. Harry isn't really the sort of "low profile" person BLP was specifically designed to protect. However, it's a bit of a dick move and common sense says I probably shouldn't do it, regardless of how many policies I can throw at the argument. So to summarise, I think Chetsford ought to have expected blowback and disruption from making those edits, no matter how on the merits he might have felt on making them, as being right isn't enough.

    Should admins be held to higher standards when editing? Absolutely. As an admin, not only do you have to be fair, you have to be seen to be fair, and admins making possible dick moves isn't a good idea.

    Are there any sanctions necessary? Not really, I think the most appropriate sanction towards Chetsford is this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I saw you add that to a discussion between the two editors involved. You are aware that when someone is upset about another editor, it rarely helps when a fellow admin comes along to post a joke "official" closure which doesn't seem to take the upset editor serious at all? It feels like closing ranks among admins, and mocking the other editor. It really is not the type of behaviour an admin should demonstrate. Fram (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything @Ritchie333 just said. JFHJr (㊟) 22:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to topic-ban Chetsford from Christopher Mellon

    [edit]
    While pretty much everyone, including Chetsford, agrees that Chetsford's actions were less than ideal, there is a clear consensus against a topic ban or page block at this time. There was mention of potential sanctions for VPP, comments were leaning against but there wasn't enough discussion for there to be a consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It is clear from the above comments by Chetsford that they will not admit to having done something wrong in attempting to insert negative information about someone’s grandfather on their BLP, using sources completely unrelated to the BLP subject—a BLP that Chetsford previously nominated for deletion. A literal reading of this discussion would suggest that Chetsford doesn’t understand Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and biographies of living people, but I believe that Chetsford actually totally understands these policies and is not being honest about it in this discussion. That’s too bad, but absent any evidence of Chetsford messing with other biographies besides Christopher Mellon's, I think that a topic-ban from that article should be enough to avoid further disruption. If other editors believe that a topic ban from BLPs is necessary, I am not opposed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I think that Chetsford needs to have clearly spelled out "rules of engagement". I oppose a topic ban from that article, since a six-month page block would do the job. They may be blocked from its talk page as well. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per my above comments Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Chetsford started a discussion at Talk:Christopher Mellon § Should appositive descriptors be used for Matthew T. Mellon?, which showed strong consensus against his proposed article version. In response, Chetsford recognized the consensus in Special:Diff/1290317702. I'm not sure why this was escalated onto ANI in the first place when it would have been resolved as a content dispute. A one-time mistake is not sufficient to warrant a topic ban. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions per Ritchie333's 0847. Support one-way Iban for VPP per their recidivism in returning to pretty much the behavior that earned them a one-week block a few months ago—from the record as "Bludgeoning, edit warring, POV pushing, WP:IDHT behavior"—although perhaps this time with added sealioning (responses usually involve swathes of text verging on the bludgeoning: [17], [18] (which includes gems such as ""Consider youself warned" (!!!)), and not forgetting what started it, along with lying about Swatjester's "suggestion" that was never made. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both TBAN and pblock. it does, looking at this, look like the insertion was problematic, admins absolutely need to be as squeaky-clean as possible, and I do agree with Snow Rise that Chetsford needs to be careful about "FRINGE burnout". That said, it doesn't appear to be a repeated/recurring thing...and this was absolutely escalated to ANI as part of the coordinated harassment campaign against Chetsford, making it fruit of the poisonous tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction for either Chetsford or VPP. While the actions of the two editors were not beyond reproach, neither of them have done anything to warrant a block/ban. There's also no indication that VPP is going to hound or otherwise harrass Chetsford, making the IBAN unnecessary. TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I am happy to adhere to the sense of the community in this, as in all things. Chetsford (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not certain if this is the right solution or not, so not !voting for the moment, but it seems to me that his replies to VPP and to the situation are often deliberately disingenious, with e.g. the false dilemma and unfair comparison from this post from today[19], where he is basically equating describing someone's current employer as "far right" (a logical description, where someone works and what type of company that is is relevant to the person) to describing someone's grandfather as a nazi supporter (even though there is no reason to have this background in the article for the grandson, it isn't relevant for that article), and declaring that "It seems we either need to generally accept the use of appositive descriptors and restrictive clauses or have a guideline against them." If that is their takeway, after the serious pusback they got at the Mellon article, then that is seriously questionable behaviour, which seems to be intended to rile up VPP or to get their own way no matter what. Fram (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - A single edit which was reverted and then a talk discussion started to gauge consensus is a very long way away from the sort of behaviour which requires a topic ban. TarnishedPathtalk 11:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose but... I think it's very clear that this UFOlogy dispute is reaching a boiling point. I don't think a topic ban of one editor from one article is likely to make this better. Rather I think it's about time that this issue be referred to arbitration. I don't think either Chetsford or VPP have particularly clean hands here. I think there's something a bit awful about creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article when, according to the reliable sources, he is not carrying on his grandfather's awful ideological legacy; he's just a bit of a UFO crank. But at the same time I think that there's been quite a lot of effort recently to increase the prominence of UFOlogy figures and to treat them as less fringe than they are. I don't think replacing a BLP problem with a FRINGE neutrality problem is a good solution to this. Arbitration is supposed to be the venue for long term, multi-editor, disruptive disputes. UFOlogy has become a long term, multi-editor, very disruptive dispute. Let's put the ball in that court. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with much of this, particularly the ARBCOM-time part. The WP/UFO-problem includes, I think, a fairly big off-WP part, directed at editors like for example Chetsford. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and sorry in advance for the interjection. I just want to correct one minor point ("creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article") since it's central to this matter, was falsely presented at the outset, and has now become true by process of repetition. I'm self-collapsing it, though, as I don't want to inappropriately influence this discussion. ↓ Chetsford (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Regardless I do think the appropriate course of action here is an arbitration referral. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    "creating an article about a man's nazi grandpa and then transcluding that information into that man's article"
    I did not create the article about Matthew Mellon and then transclude that information into the Christopher Mellon article.
    I initially added a paragraph to the Family section of the Christopher Mellon article that included a couple sentences of information on his grandfather, Matthew, as Matthew did not have any existing article; that he was a professor of literature, a trustee of Colby College, and a Nazi. This was reverted and we proceeded to a brief Talk discussion. After discussion, I came to agree the revert was appropriate and my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it.
    During the process of discussion, it became clear that Matthew was unambiguously notable in his own right. It was only at that point I created the Matthew article (as I am wont to do anytime I see a notable person without an article, evidenced by the 400 articles I've created). Nothing was ever transcluded into the Christopher article from the Matthew article in relation to the content in the OP as the Matthew article didn't exist when this occurred.
    (In retrospect, I should probably have drafted the Matthew article and waited a few weeks to introduce it to mainspace so as to avoid the potential for misunderstanding among those for whom this is a very central topic.) Chetsford (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure we've hit the threshold where the committee would yet take this up, but it is probably inevitable. The surge of interest in this topic, like many related conspiracy theories, seems to be broader than our corner of the web and seems unlikely to abet any time soon. I just can't imagine what might be the source of all of this trend towards misinformation, skepticism of government and deep state conspiracy theory crankery... That said, this leaves the perennial issue in such cases of who actually has a motivation to open a case request--because honestly, I don't see either of the two main parties here doing it. SnowRise let's rap 23:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per much of the above. I further note that the proposer of this sanction wrote [Chetsford] is not being honest about it in this discussion, which is a clear, unambiguous aspersion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still struggling to parse through everything that is happening here. It seems clear that Chetsford has long been doing admirable work fighting in the trenches against the fringe lunatic crowd. And I'm well aware that editors who fight the fringe lunatic crowd often have a target on their backs. What is less clear is whether the OP of this thread is part of that crowd; if so, we should do something about that. (Also, my above rebuke to Fortuna notwithstanding, naming yourself 'Very Polite Person' is just asking for trouble.) But regardless of the fringe lunatic stuff, it is troubling to see an admin lob a 'guilt-by-association' grenade at a BLP subject. Yes, it was one edit. Yes, it was reverted. Yes, Chetsford is not pursuing it further. Still, the evasive responses and the evident failure to grasp why the edit was a BLP no-no would be concerning coming from any veteran editor, let alone an admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd really like you to edit out the terms "fringe lunatic" and particularly the suggestion that Very Polite Person might be a "fringe lunatic". I don't believe English is your native language, and so I am happy to assume that you don't quite appreciate the weight of those words. However, suggesting somebody belongs to a lunatic fringe without exceptionally strong evidence (and perhaps even with it) would constitute a personal attack.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's the first time anyone has ever suggested that English isn't my first language. If you scroll up, you'll see that it was Chetsford who described one of VPP's edits as the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia. In my prior comment, I was not saying that I do or not believe VPP is part of the fringe lunatic crowd. I was acknowledging that Chetsford said it. As I've said before, it has become incredibly difficult to parse what exactly is going on here with all the finger-pointing back and forth. I don't think you are helping matters, either. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this is a long thread, but you can't even imply somebody might be a lunatic.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boynamedsue: Jimmy Wales might disagree. See also the essay WP:CHARLATANS. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Chetsford who described one of VPP's edits as the insertion of unsourced flying saucer fancruft into our encyclopedia.
    Where was this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know but, to spare Lepricavark from having to sludge through a million diffs, I can affirm I said there had generally been issues with the insertion of unsourced content. In a separate sentence I then noted your insertion of the claim "[Mellon] oversaw the National Security Agency" [20] based on what you said [21] was a source that reported he once "examined the books" of the NSA. So, technically, it was probably a WP:FAKE source ("[a source that] does not support the content") and not a non-source. Apologies for any imprecision in terminology. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as they still can't get the facts straight, and this false narrative influences oppose votes like the one from Lepricavark right above ("yes, it was one edit"). Chetsford above (in the collapsed section) and elsewhere tells us that he added the info once, got reverted, then created the article about the grandfather, and that's about it. Not only glosses this over his WP:BLUDGEONing of the talk page discussion until the overwhelming number of opposers forced him to admit that it shouldn't be included, and the ongoing discussion on the BLP talk page (see my link in my previous post) where he is using very dubious debating tactics to get support for his by now thoroughly rejected position; it also ignores completely that he reinserted the nazi claim into the Christopher Mellon article.

    Timeline:

    • 02.13 insertion of the Nazi claims[22]

    [23] (reverted 02.41, talk page discussion started 02.42)

    To present this "After discussion, I came to agree the revert was appropriate and my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it. During the process of discussion, however, it became clear that Matthew Mellon was unambiguously notable in his own right. It was at that point I created the Matthew article. Nothing was ever transcluded into the Christopher article from the Matthew article in relation to the content in the OP as the Matthew article didn't exist when this occurred." is clearly false, and I can't trust them to edit this or any related articles. Fram (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry if I wasn't clear. My comment above was in relation to the content the OP quoted. There was a separate discussion on the Talk page related to the use of appositive descriptors to which I believe you're referring. Newslinger itemized it in their comment, noting my concession to the consensus in that discussion (Special:Diff/1290317702). If I didn't reply in a way that communicated that I was referring specifically to the content quoted by the OP, I'm sorry and will endeavor to be more clear in the future. Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming "my edit veered too close to a BLP issue which is why I didn't reinsert it." when you actually reinserted the actual BLP issue just an hour later, is not being unclear. You have been pushing this "one edit" canard right from the start (""a massive amount of time and effort" Are you referring to the one edit I made?", "Within minutes of the content being introduced, VPP removed it. It was not reinserted as, by this point, the Matthew T. Mellon article was live and the extended description was, in my opinion, no longer necessary. " (which is a second falsehood, as you have argued and continue to argue that the extended description is, in fact, necessary.) "I inserted five sentences of content into a 2,000 word article (three sentences of which, involving Matthew Mellon's scholarly work, doesn't even seem to have scandalized anyone). Twenty-four minutes later that edit was reverted. A Talk page discussion ensued." "two sentences of a BLP edge case that was reverted by another editor and then immediately moved to Talk page discussion. Bold-Revert-Discuss cycles like this happen by their dozens daily on WP and no reasonable editor would ever deign to bring it to ANI." "There was no brightline BLP violation, no 3RR, not even a 1RR. It was the most mild and routine of content disagreements being reasonably discussed at a Talk page.") Every single one of these is you claiming that all that happened was insertion-reversion-discussion. This is not a one-off "unclear" statement, this is a continued attempt to create a narrative in your favour by making false claims. Fram (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I'd been clear that I was referring to the content quoted by the OP in each of my comments by repeatedly saying "in relation to the content in the OP" and similar, and not any separate discussions on the article's Talk related to the applicability of MOS:NOFORCELINK. Moreover, the timestamps simply don't support the claim that I created the Matthew Mellon article first [25] and then inserted the content in the OP into the article [26] and I don't feel I've done anything wrong in correcting that assertion when it's been made. Like I said, though, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But Chetsford....those edits are about a half an hour apart. Litteraly nobody here except for you yourself thinks that the precise order of these two edits is dispositive of any the issues or concerns raised. It's an incredibly minor, pedantic point which doesn't imapact the overall worries that the community clearly has about your actions here. So your bringing it up over, and over, and over again feels like a huge deflection. I'd call it a smoke screen, but at this point I honestly don't know whether you are trying to convince us that this exculpates you from any blame here or convince yourself
    So please, just stop bringing this up. We are all aware of this detail: you've said it a half dozen times in this thread. The concerns of the community are not tied to the fact of the technicality of whether you added the Nazi reference to Christopher Mellon's article first, or whether you created the Mathew Mellon article first. The concerns are that you did former at all, particularly given your recent history with that article and related subject matter. So, once and for all, the record notes that you created the Mathew Mellon article after adding the Nazi-related content concerning Mathew Mellon into the Christopher Mellon article. But our concerns remain, and are not in any significant way eased by the precise chronology of these two basically contemporaneous edits. Whatever the order, this was a seriously questionable set of choices on your part.
    I mean, you are at serious risk of talking yourself into a sanction here with your WP:IDHT. This discussion would have been 1/3 its current size if you'd just been able to say "Ok, I get it, this looks bad." Now people are talking about opening an ArbCom case. And my friend, despite some hard advice from some of us, you are seriously benefiting from the Trusted Community Member ANI Discount here. Historically, ArbCom is much less laissez-faire about this kind of thing. Seriously, read the room and cut your losses. SnowRise let's rap 00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And you may not believe this, but I am 100% telling you this because I don't want to lose the value of your engagement with this area longterm just because Team Woo Boost dogpiled you into some very poor thinking short term. But the community also can't completely turn a blind eye to the issues raised here. Please try to understand and help us help you! SnowRise let's rap 00:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are very different chunks of text... Insertion and reinsertion in that context feels misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he reinserted the text, he reinserted the disputed BLP issue in different words, in the first (longer) edit "Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast"", in the second edit " Nazi Party supporter". Fram (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit was "According to Princeton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast" though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934, Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming"." and the second was "Nazi Party supporter." The major difference I see is that in the first one its an attributed quote and in the second its in wikivoice... But its really not the same content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problematic guilt-by-association connection between Christopher Mellon and his pro-Nazi grandpa is present in both edits. That's the issue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither set of text carries guilt by association. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to believe that was not the intention, but my credulity doesn't stretch that far. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that someone's relative was a Nazi is a textbook example of guilt by association. While I'm here, oppose sanctions, as the two edits constitute a one-time mistake (AFAIK) and everyone makes mistakes. Levivich (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think any sanction is necessary at the moment. Chetsford has stepped back from their confrontational position at the talkpage of Christopher Mellon, so I wouldn't class it as an ongoing issue. I would, however, suggest that Chetsford reflect on the way they behave on UFO-proximate threads. It's pretty baffling that someone can seemingly believe that Christopher Melon has not received WP:SIGCOV whereas his no-mark grandad did, and this smacks of editing with very strong biases that are negatively affecting their contributions. I would recommend a few weeks' voluntary break from this kind of thing for Chetsford's own good, and then a return to editing on it with a less partisan mindset. But yeah, at the minute the negative behaviour has only been mildly disruptive.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's pretty baffling that someone can seemingly believe that Christopher Melon has not received WP:SIGCOV whereas his no-mark grandad did Note that the original Christopher Mellon article was deleted at AfD and the no-mark Matthew T. Mellon has not been nominated for deletion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's exceptionally baffling that AfD voted that way. Google "Christopher Mellon+Guardian" and "Christopher Mellon+NYT" and you get sigcov. Kind of illustrative of the blindspots of wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both that AfD and the Harald Malmgren one, that latter even drawing out User:Jimbo Wales about the WP:BLP issues, were baffling. Many users trivially sourced Malmgren during the AfD, and it was ultimately trivial to source Christopher Mellon, as User:Chetsford themselves demonstrated by digging out decades old Newspaper.com sources about Mellon after I meticulously rebuilt the article from zero content. I have no idea how he didn't catch any of these on the stated WP:BEFORE. It seems unlikely. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't deny thats a bit puzzling... Perhaps Chetsford does need to better police their own biases if they want to avoid any sanctions in the future. I would note though that they are not the only one with an apparent blind spot, all the editors who claimed that the elder Mellon was not notable but the younger was have also brought their bias into question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the AfD nom: This is legitimized through extensive REFBOMBing in which a dozen RS (e.g. Vice, The Guardian, etc.) are crammed into the article. However, on close inspection, each of these simply contain one sentence quotes from Mellon; no biographical detail or detail of any kind.
    Seems a little unfair to pretend like these weren't addressed when they were from the outset. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is yet another reason why (in addition to the off-wiki coordination we all know is going on and the entrenchment between certain skeptical editors and certain true believers all of whom seem to want to right great wrongs) I think this would be better tabled as a basis for a referral to Arbitration regarding UFOlogy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With the goal being what, exactly? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the structure of a case would be a big improvement over all the shit-flinging. Right now if I bring up VPP's battleground editing it's just more feces in the wind, kicking it to ArbCom is kind of a reset button on that. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Frankly it's the venue intended for long-term, multi-party, disruptive disputes. And that's what this UFOlogy business is. And, while I have my own personal skepticism of saucer people stories, I can't help but notice that there's an entrenched battleground mentality between the two parties here that I cannot ignore notwithstanding my personal sympathies. I would suspect this ends up another CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suspect this (Ufology) ends up another CTOP I thought it already was. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point, JoJo Anthrax [27]. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to say that the sigcov linked to the article for the older Mellon amounts to a couple of 90-year-old newspaper articles behind a pay wall. That's it. I don't feel newspaper articles from the 1930s amount to reliable sources for the purpose of notability in this or any other case. I would class them as historical documents requiring the interpretation of modern authors for us to assess their weight. I would also say that I am certain sceptics and ufo-enthusaists organise off-wiki. I hope one day proof of this emerges, linked to the users concerned, and both sides are banned forever.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel newspaper articles from the 1930s amount to reliable sources for the purpose of notability in this or any other case. Would they have established notability then, though? Becasue notability is not temporary. (Note also that offline sources or paywalled ones are entirely acceptable; WP:OBSCURE, WP:TRIVIAL, and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH also seem relevant). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in terms of paywalled sources, they have not as yet been checked by anyone, so whether they actually do provide sigcov can be questioned until the relevant details are provided. As for the ninety-year-old sources, WP:AGEMATTERS is surely relevant, and I would suggest defunct newspapers, and even newspapers that are now reliable may not have been at the time. As the RS guideline states: , a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source.. I would suggest these newspapers articles became primary sources long before the advent of wikipedia, and so no notability has ever been established and WP:NTEMP is not valid. If 90 year-old newspaper articles can give notability today, where do we draw the line? The first edition of the Times in 1821? John Harris's lexicon of 1704? The Nuremberg Chronicle? Suetonius? Herodotus? Boynamedsue (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    a contemporary secondary news source can quickly become a historical primary source Whut...how is that even supposed to work? not the venue, I know, but...my mind boggles! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence you quote starts with Similarly for breaking news, obviously that doesn't apply here, 1930s news has never been "breaking" in a Wikipedia context, because it happened 70 years before the site was founded. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To swerve back on to topic, this really isn't proving out the allegation that Chetsford has "very strong biases" in finding SIGCOV for Mellon Sr. Your own frustrations with the guidelines are irrelevant to that. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a bit of a red herring... In addition to sigcov from the 1920s and 1930s there is also sigcov from 1950, 1951, 1967, 1968, 1978, 1983, etc... But in general the line seems to be about a hundred years depending on the context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprecate Herodotus; known reputation for poor fact-checking and pro-hellenic/anti-persian bias. SnowRise let's rap 22:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be interested in this discussion. Ioe bidome (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @REAL MOUSE IRL:So what would you say is the cutoff date for newspaper articles that provide sigcov to establish notability?
    HEB, I don't think the later sources provide sigcov. Though I would agree, if they do there is a much stronger case to retain the article.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Among the later sources I would single out Koskoff's 1978 book, Koskoff even interviews him (the latest most recent interview I can locate). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, having looked at that book, you are totally right. I missed that one. It would have perhaps helped if, instead of spending an hour or so being evasive about the sourcing when I asked him, Chetsford had said "actually Koskoff provides sigcov".--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose We should instead indef block every singe FRINGE UFOlogy pusher active on any of these articles. They're the problem in this topic area. SilverserenC 01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, I don't think anyone is opposed to blocking the WP:NOTHERE elements, in principle. The issue is making all of those determinations and blocks, particularly as you are dealing with an ever-revolving cast of meatpuppets. I've dealt with scenarios like Chetsford is trying to tamp down presently (which is why I was unlikely to ever support a sanction even though I think they are somewhat missing the forest for the tries on this one particular article) and the issue is that you are looking at huge (sometimes vast) numbers of low-commitment IP editors and new SPAs who will flood articles and talk pages and each make very minimal contributions, but collectively make the same policy-ignorant, emotive, and/or conspiracy theory-laden arguments arguments and EW edits again and again.
      These SPAs get recruited en masse from the most credulous corners of YouTube comments sections or Twitter threads and hurled at articles with no understanding of this project's principles or intent to engage with it beyond their immediate objective to try to enforce their preferred outcome through sheer numbers, and they often believe we are a part of (or the clueless tools of) some cabal or another. So ultimately page protection ends up being the only real means of stemming the flood of disruption, and blocks, even when you can get them, are not super effective. SnowRise let's rap 06:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blocking User:Chetsford here from this article. I think we have consensus. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Chetsford should have known better, and for me, that is the real issue, and from their comments here, it's not clear to me that they understand that. I think a forced break of 3 to 6 months is reasonable. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Both parties are partially correct and partially wrong. Blocking Chetsford from the article would only make sense if that would prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and Chetsford does not cause damage to the encyclopedia. Support trouting everyone including you, the reader. Polygnotus (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Digging up the past of someone's grandfather and adding it in the way that Chetford did was very sub par, but they have accepted that. Given VPP has also opposed the proposal I really think this isn't necessary at this point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/historians-believe-the-duke-of-windsor-actively-collaborated-with-the-nazis-during-the-second-world-war-1.6635225
    2. ^ https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a41888338/british-royal-family-nazi-relationship-history/
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    And it continues

    [edit]

    I submit, for the drahmaboard's consideration, ongoing issues with Very Polite Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Hmmm...

    jps (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, on the first you edited a WP:BLP to put unsourced content about a different WP:BLP into that article with this edit.
    On the second, there was a polite impasse on the article talk page whether a certain article from an otherwise sound WP:RS was a valid WP:RS at all. So, I asked for extra independent opinions on RSN, and promptly got dog piled for asking.
    In both cases I strictly followed correct protocol: try to get the unsourced WP:BLP content sourced, and get extra eyes on an unusual protracted WP:RS dispute. Was I not supposed to try and fix a WP:BLP policy violation--which I graciously tried to let you explain--or to try and figure out if that WP:RS was OK? I am starting to feel like between Christopher Mellon and Luis Elizondo that people are getting increasingly mad at me for being effective at finding sources. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    VPPs initial post at WP:RSN [28] was, in my opinion, utterly dishonest, in that it attempted to present the source in isolation, without the slightest concession towards the possibility that it might be contradicted by other sources, as they were fully aware. Add that to their later absurd claim that this had nothing to do with UFOs [29], along with all the other tedious time-wasting wall-of-text repetition in that thread, and I'd say we have sufficient grounds for a topic ban from 'UFOs broadly construed' at minimum. This nonsense has gone on far too long. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've gotta be kidding me. The Luis Elizondo article was a total WP:BLP trainwreck until I fixed it. Christopher Mellon was a complete from zero rewrite by me that is a perfectly sound article. All I've tried to do since is make sure both are honest on WP:BLP terms. I took the challenge to unsuccesfully, it appears, add sources to The Sol Foundation. That's it. That's (as far as I'm aware) my entire spectrum of "UFO stuff". I keep all the pages I regularly bother with right on my user page -- go look. If I had any confidence Luis Elizondo wouldn't devolve into another WP:BLP nightmare I'd take it off my watchlist right now. I don't think there's anyone who has removed more content from that than anyone else. Go look at the edit history.
    All I know is that the moment I make the slightest move on either of those articles, no matter how trivial, I suddenly have half a dozen people calling for my blood/sanctions, and they get upset that I don't... I don't know, just roll over on WP:BLP? I'm not even a "UFO editor". I found three messed up articles and tried to fix them.
    It's kinda feeling like I'm targeted because I'm effective at editing/sourcing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even a "UFO editor". I found three messed up articles and tried to fix them. You sure about that? jps (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    VPP's assertion that 'I'm not even a "UFO editor"' is demonstrably false, given the multiple articles involving that topic they have edited. [30] See e.g. Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act (now a redirect), The Sol Foundation, Sean M. Kirkpatrick, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, Garry Nolan, Project Blue Book etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, how often exactly am I even touching any of those, with some over a year old amd only a handful of articles, basically all touched as branches of my initial Luis Elizondo involvement? I added a bit of content here and there, fixed up a few BLP issues, and moved on. Sol Foundation was followed off my researching the Mellon article to source it for his extensive government history--my wheelhouse naturally. Go look at the AFC drafts--I even made two versions of the Mellon article, with and without UFOs to make sure he was notable WITHOUT UFOs (he was, trivially). Whatever all of you guys have going with these articles, I honestly don't give a shit. I did what I wanted with Mellon--sourced and wrote it. The BLP stuff is done on Elizondo.
    Banning seems kind of pointless as I don't even really edit those spaces, I wander into them here and there (rarely) outside those two nexus articles (Elizondo and now Mellon). Both are stable/done. If my presence and effectiveness at sourcing content is so upsetting to the WP:FRINGE enthusiasts, I'm more than happy to just focus on my own science/law articles. I just wanted to get Mellon to GA because of his incredibly deep government history in the Senate and DOD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Luis Elizondo article was a total WP:BLP trainwreck until I fixed it. Not only is that absolutely false, it is a clear aspersion against the multiple good-faith editors who edited that article and did not, in fact, violate any WP policies. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was Luis Elizondo before I first touched it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&oldid=1242115774
    Compare to now: Luis Elizondo, and the state I've left it in for others to maintain.
    It is impossible to say I did not improve it. There's a thread somewhere here or BPLN where uninvolved people seemed horrified at it's state when I reported it. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    VPP omits some important details here. Starting on or about 2024-08-25, VPP certainly made a great many edits to the Luis Elizondo page. Their final edit to the page during that epoch was this, on 2024-09-19, which included in the edit summary the false claim that an editor restored a WP:BLP violation. Less than ten minutes later VPP was blocked for one-week for, among other things, POV-pushing in this topic area. Shortly afterward, as evidenced on the page's history, several editors began actively editing the article, resulting in a significant amount of newly added WP:PROMO and WP:UNDUE content being removed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස: I am deeply concerned that the discussion on whether Leslie Kane (BLP) can be described as a "UFO-enthusiast" has been given as evidence of some kind of problem in VPP's editing. It is entirely appropriate to request for sourcing for a BLP. JPS seemed to be arguing for a while that their descriptor of a BLP subject did not require sourcing as it was common knowledge, and then asking VPP to provide them with a source for their own edit! [31] When a source appeared, YPP immediately accepted it. I can't fathom what JPS is doing here, all they needed to do was add a source to the page and yet instead they chose to argue for an hour and only then source the claim they wished to see in the article.[32] Come on JPS, you know that when someone challenges an edit, especially when it is with a cn tag, the first thing you do is source it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you "deeply" concerned? Perhaps you can explain what is so deep about that concern? I never argued that the descriptor did not require sourcing as it was common knowledge. I argued that it was already sourced with the sources already present both in the article in question and in the linked article. The CN tag went up quite a bit after the talkpage discussion was started. Check the timestamps. jps (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The talkpage discussion started with a discussion between Chetsford and VPP, after which VPP added a citation needed tag at 01:59 on the 15th of May [33]. Chetsford had proposed some sources that he thought might support your edit, and VPP was not entirely sure whether they were enough to support the claim. This is absolutely fine from both users as it's not up to VPP to support your edits for you. Chetsford and VPP then talked some more, but no source supporting the quote was added. You joined the discussion at 18:13 on the 15th and made 8 more very argumentative posts before adding the source that justified your edit. In one of those edits you accused VPP of lying, because he did not accept that WP:5P was a justification for adding the word "UFO enthusiast" to a BLP (it isn't).[34]. Your debating with him looked confrontational and was certainly did nothing to reduce the amount of time spent on the debate. If it had been me, I would have added the source, put the direct quote on the talkpage and simply said "it's what the source says, we follow the sources." To me that discussion looks like a failure on the part of two users to discuss in a constructive way, though only one was aggressive and it was not the one who might have the excuse of inexperience.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my estimation, you are free to argue that WP:5P it not justification, but I also think that in this pluralistic community of Wikipedians, you are also tasked to accept that I am also a member of the community and am allowed to hold the alternate opinion wherein I like to quote WP:5P. I'm fine that you would have taken a different approach in the conversation, but I don't think that making a moral judgement and implying deep consternation with my approach (which I see as basically being like, "Hey, this is best for the reader, doncha think?") is somehow inimical to WP:ENC or whatever. jps (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposed topic ban as one of the people who had to waste their time correcting VPP's extremely misleading statements in the RSN thread. - MrOllie (talk)
      And another thing that needs correction. Despite the claims in the comment above mine, this is definately not VPP's first time on the fringe: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_102#Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena_Disclosure_Act,_NPOV,_FRINGE_and_UNDUE. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an article about a proposed law, that I helped make and prune, and didn't even make a fuss when it got redirected away. I'm incredibly open about what I do--look at my user page. I write articles about topics related to national security, science, classification of data and related doctrines, and laws related to the same. Like I said, the weird hostility I get is just... weird. For adding source and insisting on people sticking tightly to WP:BLP?
      Is there any issue with my editing on Christopher Mellon; if so--what? Or that law article? Or is this all down to my not letting people steamroll the Luis Elizondo page on WP:BLP terms? The drones one was a hot article at the time, like the stupid DOGE one for government, and I helped on both--again, both in my natural interests. I don't list either on my page because I dipped in for a few weeks and dipped back out. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but reading that Fringe noticeboard thread, it is not VPP who comes over badly.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Hopefully with reassurance that "broadly construed" includes the current RSN thread, lest the same argument come up again. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 22:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Also that and that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I'm deeply unimpressed by the RSN discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the note I did "look into" the situation before pressing the post button. This isn't about the rights or wrong of the topic area I would hope editors wouldn't confuse the two, but the concerns I have coming from the RSN discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever curious hang ups some of you have about all this WP:FRINGE stuff, I think I'm done with the walled garden some of you want to curate, to whatever ends. I don't care. You guys are way too intense for no obvious reason. Both Mellon, Elizondo and RSN are off my watch list. I'll be busy building science/law/some history articles mainly. Field propulsion and Abigail Becker and Born secret and Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station hopefully to GA soon. If anyone wants to help, I've got a list of articles I'm focusing on, on my user page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - I admire VPP’s passion for the subjects his detractors are so determined to silence him on, and find it fascinating how determined they are. I’ve been around a long time on Wikipedia, and have seen a shift in the last 8 years on the subject in the worldwide media, and in the U.S. Congress. This shift appears to have a serious effect. It’s my feeling that VPP provides a welcome balance here at the ‘pedia, and I hope others casting !votes here will look a bit into the history before they hit their publish button. Please note that although I created the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program article way back in 2017 using mainstream reliable sources, and put some effort into the Elizondo article’s BLP issues, I consider myself a neutralist on the subject, have many other interests on the Wiki, and find reverting vandals much more rewarding than getting into the weeds on this topic. If VPP has had enough, we should take them at their word and close this with no action, as I see it. Cheers and best wishes to all! Jusdafax (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody is trying to silence VPP. If they wanted this to go better, especially on RSN, they could have chosen to be more honest in describing the dispute. It would also be helpful for them to use some of that "determination" to follow the guidelines about trying to find honest consensus instead of throwing out constant references to policies along with walls of text to bludgeon other editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Refer to ArbCom Let ArbCom (whose members I assume are neither pro nor anti-UFOs) analyse the situation from a non-partisan POV. Some1 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ArbCom only deals with issues the community cannot resolve. As of now, we are attempting to resolve it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ArbCom already has "analyse(d) the situation." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposed topic ban - VPP's obvious WP:OWNership and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior is wasting the time of experienced editors. Talk about intense, look through the history at Christopher Mellon with their barrage of edits featuring needlessly aggressive edit summaries and relentless Talk page argumentation that is classic WP:CRYBLP. And this same behavior continues at Luis Elizondo, The Sol Foundation, etc. I think TBAN guardrails would help relieve what has become an ongoing problem. - LuckyLouie (talk)
    I should add that VPP’s promise that they will give up editing these articles isn’t reassuring. They made similar empty promises after they were blocked the last time for edit warring and disruption at UFO activist Luis Elizondo BLP, but after a while their disruption resumed with renewed vigor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not have supported a topic ban prior to the situation at WP:RS/N today where it seemed like VPP was rather intentionally leaving out important information in order to get the response they wanted. This UFO silliness is becoming a real time suck and VPP's tendency to elide even that it is UFO silliness is honestly making it worse. As such reluctant support for a topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose based on further reading of the expanded discussionNeutralWeak OpposeReluctant Support with preference for a Threshold Banbased on comment by JoJoAnthrax, I am again modifying my !vote, this time to Neutral.As someone else pointed out, VPP said they intend to approach these articles with a lighter touch. Therefore, I change my opinion here to oppose. Any ban is unnecessary based on their commitment to proceed with greater caution and prohibiting them from this (or any) topic is no longer necessary in light of that statement. No editor should be banned from anywhere except in the most drastic circumstances which this does not seem to be. (The OP's move for a TBAN was well-presented and done in GF as it was made prior to this new information from VPP.) (the threshold being completion of all challenges in the WP:ADVENTURE at which time the ban will automatically rescind with no further action required by VPP), noting Jusdafax's comment that VPP brings both an apparent awareness of sources on this topic, as well as a fresh perspective we should welcome.
      That said, aside from the issues identified in the OP, there have been instances of insertion of rather fanciful claims into UFO articles that -- generously -- ride the edge of being WP:FAKE sourcing (sources that do not support the content inserted). At a surface level, these may appear to be nitpicking over wording. However, there is a chronic issue with UFO editors who sometimes unintentionally aggrandize UFO articles to align them with the stories of celebrity UFO mythmakers through subtle shifts in phrasing. A couple non-exhaustive examples:
    1. VPP inserted into the Christopher Mellon article the claim that Mellon "oversaw the National Security Agency". [35] When I asked him for a source for this extraordinary claim, he pointed [36] to a source that said Mellon once "examined the books" of the NSA.
    2. After the Mellon article was deleted at AfD he did yeoman's work in rebuilding it, and even kindly asked me (as AfD nom) if I objected to its recreation; I said I did not [37]. But some wording advanced more phrases aligned with the UFO mythos than reality (e.g. Mellon's "tenure in the Senate" -- Mellon was never in the Senate -- which I corrected here [38] / This was sourced to this [39] which never referred to his "tenure in the Senate" a phrase logically reserved for senators, and not employees of senators).
    Under no circumstance should these warrant a ban, as they can each be resolved through Talk discussion. The problem that arises is that, when editors engage in discussion threads with VPP, they are sometimes met with a broadside of WP:BATTLEGROUND responses which disinclines such discussion, to wit: "accept... the rejection of your position" [40], ""admit you lost"" [41], ""You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity" [42], "Do you agree to my terms?" [43], etc. These all come a few weeks after a block [44] over behavioral issues.
    A threshold ban is the least onerous ban possible and provides a non-punitive opportunity for an editor to enhance the impact of his contributions, without meaningfully restricting his access to the project (which is something we should avoid in all but the most dire situations). Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC); edited 04:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC); edited 07:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this proposal. Simonm223 (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my above, specifically: their recidivism in returning to pretty much the behavior that earned them a one-week block a few months ago—from the record as "Bludgeoning, edit warring, POV pushing, WP:IDHT behavior"—although with added faux-civility and sealioning (responses usually involve swathes of text verging on the bludgeoning: [153], [154] (which includes gems such as ""Consider youself warned" (!!!)), and not forgetting what started it, along with lying about Swatjester's "suggestion" that was never made. They're a classic example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Also noting that they have now been notified that they're editing a C-TOP. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose JPS added unsourced content to a BLP, a discussion occurred about the content, JPS added a source and YPP accepted it. No revert was made. Why on earth is this here?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, oppose per BNS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boynamedsue I did not add unsourced content to a BLP. Please strike that accusation as it is plainly incorrect. jps (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If an addition does not have a clearly identifiable source it is unsourced, this is especially true of BLP.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you determine it was not clearly identifiable? Did you try to identify the source yourself? Do you have a diff where I refused to identify a source? jps (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose. There are some issues here, but I'm more than a little worried that this is being blown out of proportion by the larger context of this thread. I would have a hard time justifying that, on the basis of behaviour that is roughly equivalent in terms of overall questionability, almost all of us were unwilling to sanction an established user to even the extent of a temporary page ban, but we will nevertheless give the OP an indefinite topic ban from the entire area. And looking at one of the discussions that jps references, I have to say that I am nearly as unimpressed with their approach as I am VPP's. Citing WP:5P in response to a request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content feels frankly lazy and obstructive, considering that namespace contains no policy language itself but is rather just a listing of the pillars.

    On the other hand Very Polite Person, I also can see why jps didn't exactly feel like bending over backwards to accommodate a heavy conversation with you on the merits. First off, there was no need to cite their name in thread title and come at them so hot in that discussion. That is never the right way to set the tone for resolving editorial differences of opinion. And, more to the core issues here, that you needed any explanation for why Kean's status as someone who is largely notable for her connection to the topic of UFOs when discussing her involvement with matters pertaining to UFOs feels willfully obtuse and is indeed an indication that you are capable of bringing disruption to this area. For the record, the two most relevant policies that come to my mind in answer to your query of jps are WP:WEIGHT and, not altogether unironically, WP:OBVIOUS. But there must be a dozen other policy pages or sections that might have been cited there.

    I also think there is something to the concerns that have been raised here about how you frame your level of engagement with this topic. Considering your time on the project, you have pretty substantial contributions to this area. You may not perceive it as a core interest that brought you to editing on Wikipedia, but I think you are being disingenuous when you claim that you don't understand why your interest in the subject matter is being framed as it is. If you're planning on moving away from these articles as you say, I think that will be helpful in establishing your bona fides as an editor with broader interests, but as it stands, I don't think anyone erred in how they described your contributions. That said, I don't see enough in terms issues here to justify topic banning you at present. But it wouldn't take many more situations like that Kean discussion for me to reconsider that. And that is worth bearing in mind when you consider I am one of a minority opposing the TBAN as it stands. SnowRise let's rap 11:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing WP:5P in response to a request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content feels frankly lazy and obstructive, considering that namespace contains no policy language itself but is rather just a listing of the pillars. That is a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you could strike it. Calling my actions "lazy and obstructive" is a pretty low blow. The five pillars enjoys a long history of being referred to as rationale for what we do when we try to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't want the five pillars referred to in discussions that ask people to justify their actions with policy, feel free to gather consensus for such a position at the village pump. But we are tasked with tolerating differences here without trying to label these differences with these kinds of bad faith assumptions. jps (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be striking anything, and bluntly, your propensity to attach the allegation of "WP:personal attack" or "WP:aspersion" to any observation that your own conduct in this dispute was suboptimal or problematic, even when it comes from a respondent community member uninvolved in the underlying dispute, is now getting into outright WP:BATTLEGROUND territory.
    Nor have you engaged with the point being raised for you in good faith: Of course the five pillars as individual policies have vast amounts of longstanding community support. That is not in dispute by anyone here, nor does your response address the actual substance of the point I very clearly detailed: citing WP:5P the namespace to an editor you are in a content/sourcing dispute with is absolutely useless, as that space is merely a collection of links to the pillars and contains no policy language itself. How was VPP to possibly know which of the literally hundreds of very important policy principles found within those five collectively massive policies you were asserting against them?
    I'm sorry, but your argument on this point is absolutely ludicrous, and if you honestly are trying to assert that citing 5P was a sufficient argument to support your point in that (or any) detailed content dispute, I am forced to judge only one of two things can be going on here: 1) you are being deeply disingenuous (and yes, obstructive) about knowing how lackluster that response was, or 2) there are serious competency issues in how you approach citing policy and community consensus in editorial disputes. SnowRise let's rap 23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you determine that I was in a content or sourcing dispute? I thought it was clear in the conversation that we had a consensus point that Leslie Kean was involved with UFO discourse. The question came back: "What policy supports your position?" My interpretation. You are free to have another. But what you are basically claiming is that this interpretation I am offering right now is so incorrect that it does not deserve a good faith acceptance for it. Instead, I am "lazy and obstructive". Civil discourse is in the eye of the beholder and I, frankly, took offense to your characterization of my actions. Like it or lump it, that's how I see it. jps (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough. But I do think you are taking the criticism harder than you should. For starters, just because I describe a particular decision or action in a certain way should not be taken as a criticism of your character or fitness as an editor generally. There's a reason why I spent much more time criticizing VPP and why I expressly indicated that I could easily see myself changing my position and supporting a TBAN for them if they continue down their current path on this topic--and had no inclination to say anything similar about you. In fact, I went out of my way to speculate that it was actions on VPP's part that got you in a posture to be terse to begin with. Nothing I said was meant to imply that you are the source of the issues in this dispute.
    But I still do have to judge VPP's conduct, and whether it justifies community response, in the light of the broader context. And if I think that another party's approach to the situation even partially explains or ameliorates how VPP, as the party being brought here for oversight, approached that situation, it's necessary to say how. And in my opinion, while VPP set the stage for that locking of horns, there is some blame to spread around in terms of the poor communication. SnowRise let's rap 22:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if my taking this as a criticism of my character went against your intentions. I guess I was feeling frustrated generally and felt that not only was it confounding to deal with the conflict when it happened but now I was being told that I handled the whole thing poorly made me feel a bit like I was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't sort of scenario. This is not an unfamiliar space for me to be in at Wikipedia and I find that if I just ignore it, sometimes I miss an opportunity to learn. I will say that I have learned from our interaction even if I am not sure I could quite see the way to interact the way you and Boynamedsue seem to be recommending I interact. I will keep trying, though! jps (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you jps: for what it's worth, I get where you are coming from--and specifically, having dealt with similar situations where conspiracy theory credulous meatpuppets, mobilized on an external social media platform, have been flooding a topic area, I get how that situation wears down one's patience for going all in on being pro forma and dotting every 'i'. To be clear, I'm not saying I have any reason to believe that VPP is a part of that coordinated campaign, but the impacts on process and editor patience/time for the niceties always eventually seeps out into the broader discussion, when that kind of mass bombardment is taking place.
    I do think that, as this thread as a whole demonstrates, it's necessary to be on guard against letting our own individual communications be degraded as we attempt to keep up with the amount of response necessitated by such a game of whack-a-mole. The unfortunate reality is that working in restraining policy-noncompliant woo boosterism often requires an extraordinary level of patience and forbearance. There's an old saying: kill them with kindness. I think we can adapt that idiom for anti-fringe work on this project: kill them with competence. Meaning, the more the bad faith actors swarm and put us under pressure to deal with their numbers, obstinacy, and lack of understanding of this project's rules and methods, the more meticulous we should be in citing and following those same rules, as this will (eventually, and not without considerable effort, I recognize) undercut their efforts, and maybe even genuinely educate a few of them.
    But I understand that is sometimes easier said than done--especially when the saying is done after the fact, by someone looking at the issue with the benefit of hindsight and not exhausted by recent interactions with the SPAs and gamesmanship. In any event, I'm glad for the opportunity to clarify that I didn't mean to come off as stridently critical of you personally, and I appreciate you taking my reassurances as to that in the spirit they were intended. SnowRise let's rap 20:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise, you better watch it with the death threats. We've got some very literal-minded editors around here. EEng 23:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not remotely a personal attack. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree it is not a personal attack, but rather an astute observation. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment With respect to VPP said they intend to approach these articles with a lighter touch (from @Chetsford:, above) and If you're planning on moving away from these articles as you (VPP) say (from @Snow Rise:, above), perhaps this comment by VPP following their September 2024 block is worth a read. The point being that similar promises were previously made by VPP (specifically, can I ask now again for unblock if I stay off from editing the page in question and just discuss on talk?), and yet here we are because VPP has repeatedly displayed the same disruptive behaviors in the same topic area that led to their block. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: have people participating in the discussion read the sources in the article? VPP rewrote it and so they presumably have, and also JPS cites the sources, but I feel like some folks have read only the discussion.

    Above, Boynamedsue says "JPS added unsourced content", Zanahary opposes sanctions on the same grounds, and Snow Rise comments on "request for relevant policy justification for inclusion of a piece of content".

    In the talk page discussion, VPP writes: "I encourage someone to properly source the claim lest any editor can immediately remove it with the full authority of WP:BLP behind them." They repeatedly bring up the idea that it was "unsourced" to described Kean as a "UFO enthusiast" or "UFO proponent". Since VPP has almost certainly read the sources cited at the end of the sentence as the article's primary author, then they know how those sources describe Kean:

    And here are quotes from the source that was added in response to VPP's mid-sentence {{fact}} tag:

    After the mid-sentence citation was added, VPP writes, "No editor is authorized to put unsourced content into a WP:BLP. That's it. I was being deferential and gracious to you and allowed you to explain the edit. You had no need to launch this entire ambiguous debate. Good day. I will consider further engagement on this settled matter to be disruptive."

    BUT VPP continues, "Sure. Never insert unsourced data into a WP:BLP again, please, as well."

    They have never given (that I see) any kind of clear answer on why they made some minor disagreement on wording into this very personalized dispute. I'm not asking for a topic ban right now because I think most editors find ANI scrutiny so aversive that being reported itself feels like punishment, and the editor has seemed to move away from the problem area, but that entire discussion feels bizarre and disingenuous, Rjjiii (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    VPP was polite and did not personalise the dispute, JPS, less so [45]. JPS could have done what you have above, and indicated a source or sources. Or they could have added a source when challenged instead of arguing the toss. Let's not forget, VPP had not deleted the claim, they had added a citation needed tag. You don't get to just ignore a request for sourcing on a talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. There is an element of WP:ONUS here; it is not on VPP to prove that the sourcing does or does not support a given claim added without a source. That's not the order of operations here. If someone disputes an addition on a straighforward WP:V basis on a WP:BLP, it is unambiguously on the proponent to demonstrate that the sourcing burden is met. Now, where we get into more of a grey area is where VPP then concedes that sourcing has been met to verify the fact, but insists on having a policy explanation for why it is due in the description of Kean in the Mellon article. It's here where other parties might start to become justified in feeling that lines are starting to be pushed. Because, to be sure, in form, this is just a typical part of the discussion process. But this is such an obvious call once the WP:V issue is resolved that I can understand if the other parties felt like they were dealing with either a stonewalling or a competency issue. I AGF that this just reflects the lack of experience of this editor, and I would say that jps' response may have been too dismissive of the policy inquiry even for these circumstances, but yeah, in the final analysis I think there is a point where VPP crossed the line into IDHT.
    I also had previously missed the last two comments Rjjiii quotes immediately above. There are definitely notes of an air of authority and self-presumed position to unilaterally reject edits that present hints of an WP:OWN attitude there. I mean, VPP is correct on the policy consideration that was being discussed there as a technical matter--and Rjjiii kind of selectively quotes them and strips away meaningful context that supports their position (i.e. the fact that they are essentially saying "Now that a source has been provided, I am not opposing this, but at the time that it was added, there was no source.")--but VPP's tone was still so presumptuous and imperious at that point as to send up red flags. Particularly given that other aspects of that discussion demonstrate that they are still coming to grips with some basic relevant policy burdens.
    So I stand by my assessment: nobody looks good here, and it would not take a whole lot of extra behaviour in this vein for myself (and I presume others) to change our minds about whether VPP can be a net positive in this area. But at the present time, I think a TBAN is not supported by the way this situation played out, particularly given VPP is not the only party to the dispute who could have handled it better. SnowRise let's rap 22:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone else tells you that the sourcing is there (it was there), it is the height of arrogance to claim it was not there. I don't think the citation I added was necessary, but out of a courtesy, I added it.
    Wikipedia is a shitty enough place without this kind of nonsensical officiousness. This was what I was complaining about. If you don't think nonsensical officiousness is a problem, that's cool. We can have different opinions about what the best way to interact at this website should be.
    jps (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the self-important, domineering attitude, I get it. That's why I made a big point of noting above that the tone of some of VPP's comments go a long way to explaining why you were giving short shrift to your responses to them. Even before you made a point of mentioning that as a factor, it was obvious to me. And a reasonable and predictable response--to a point.
    But it's one thing to be curt or minimally responsive. There comes a point where you can't cut any more corners if you want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion/editorial reslolution without exacerbating any existing issues. Until you can be bothered to provide a cite for a given statement, they are entitled to insist the unsupported content stays out until someone does. 99 times out of 100, that's just the name of the game here. Do I get why you think they came in hot on you? Yes, absolutely: 100%. Is that the end of the analysis as to why this tempest in a teapot needlessly escalated? No. SnowRise let's rap 04:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Until you can be bothered to provide a cite for a given statement," sure, but there were two citations at the end of the sentence. Rjjiii (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but I don't believe that VPP was contesting the WP:V issue by that point. The description in question was unsourced for a short time, which is when the argument got under way--and way too intense, way too fast. SnowRise let's rap 07:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was sourced at the end of the sentence. It is now WP:OVERCITEd. jps (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boynamedsue JPS could have done what you have above, and indicated a source or sources. Or they could have added a source when challenged instead of arguing the toss. Please stop casting aspersions. The sources were already in the article, other sources were listed in the discussion, and I added yet another source immediately after the CN tag was placed in the articlespace. I would appreciate that you stop impugning my actions and motivations as it seems you have not clearly read through the discussion. jps (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources being in the article is not good enough, it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim. It is not anybody else's responsibility to read through all the sources on the page to find if one is relevant. There was a citation needed tag which you chose not to resolve, instead preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour. This is a really basic failing which, for me, is utterly baffling. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim On what are you basing this imperative? jps (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so to clarify you are sustaining, even when a claim in an article has been challenged, it is not necessary to be able to identify the source which supports that statement?Boynamedsue (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I can't tell if that is an answer to my question. If it is, I guess you are either saying
    1. That a claim was clearly challenged. To be clear, I still don't understand what exactly is contentious about Kean's connection to UFO literature, but perhaps you see it more clearly than I and can explain it... or...
    2. that I was unable to identify the source which supports the statement. But I am stating that a totally acceptable source is right there at the end of the sentence.
    In either case, I remain flummoxed and while I don't expect you to champion the cause of another user, you are impugning my motives here and aggressively accusing me of acting inappropriately at least, so it would be nice to get to the bottom of what exactly you find so objectionable about trying to add some clarity to the explanation of who exactly Leslie Kean is and why the reader should care. jps (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a citation needed tag which you chose not to resolve, instead preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour If you check the timestamps, you will see that I made two comments about the sourcing made one minute and three minutes immediately after the citation needed tag was added. I hope you will indulge me that I was replying on the talkpage and not checking the articlespace for recent diffs for those first two. But I will cop to having made two statements after the citation needed tag was added, but before I replaced the tag with another citation: [46]. As such, I object to the characterization of my actions as "preferring to bicker aimlessly for an hour" when, in fact, it was less than 30 minutes from the tag being added to my insertion of a (pointless, in my estimation) cite immediately following the phrase and these diffs is the sum total of the conversation that I was contributing in the meantime. jps (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see that the time was shorter than an hour, which does make things less problematic as I can agree you might not have understood that they were requesting direct evidence to support the claim. But I hope you can reflect on that discussion. You did not enter it constructively, throwing down WP:5, without even a quote, when asked for justification for inclusion is simply unhelpful. Then making accusations of WP:SEALION and WP:CIR when somebody rightly points out you haven't answered their question in any meaningful way is really shoddy. And the accusation of lying is exceptionally confrontational, alongside using words like "clueless" and "mislead". Yes, you were in the right; the claim was really easy to source. But that's what made it all so unnecessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to be at a stark difference of opinion about whether I answered their direct question meaningfully. I tried to opine with perhaps too much brevity that the reader deserved a clearer explanation of the sources provided by describing Leslie Kean as more than just a "journalist". Exactly what words we used to explain her UFO predilections, I tried to be clear, was not something I cared that much about. What I saw as the immediate response to this was, "WHAT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE THIS OPINION?" And I'm like, "all of them"? Seriously.
    I tried to explain later what I think went wrong. If VPP had said, "I think this statement is contentious because people find any connection to UFOs to be contentious, so is this something sourced?" I guess I could have pointed to the source at the end of the sentence? But I thought it was obvious that was the source until the point the CN tag went in. In any case, apparently adding yet another source in place of the CN was good enough, and I didn't care enough to have the WP:OVERCITE argument.
    What it sounds to me like you wanted was someone not to push back on the kind of officiousness that implied that no way but VPP's way could be the right way. That was what I was getting out of that conversation, and I don't buy the argument that the person invoking WP:BLP gets to make demands and act like they own the place.
    jps (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    'it needs to be clear which source is supporting the claim' On what are you basing this imperative?
    WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all ... material the verifiability of which has been challenged...". (emphasis in original). Note that WP:BURDEN also includes a footnote noting that the issue is not whether the source is in the article or not: each individual dispute places the burden upon the proponent to demonstrate sourcing support for the claim in question. What's more, even once the WP:V issue is resolved, you still have an WP:ONUS requirement to achieve consensus for inclusion.
    So Boynamedsue is absolutely correct about who, between you and VPP, was responsible for the legwork of supporting their position with a directly on-point source, and you are demonstrably incorrect. I'm honestly surprised you are not familiar with this requirement, as it is a longstanding and prominent feature of WP:V. And beyond that, I'm curious: even if this were not a requirement under policy, why wouldn't you just provide the source if you knew it was in the article, especially considering you ended up wasting several times as much effort in back-and-forth broadsides on the talk page instead? What is the point of that? It certainly doesn't help your case now, after the fact, when you want to assert that the other editor was not only disruptive, but so disruptive that the community should take action. SnowRise let's rap 23:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would making this a more general point clarify matters for you? Let's say that there is a sentence in an article: "Living Person A is a B". Two sources are at the end to support the statement. The sources also indicate that, aside from being a B, Living Person A is a B of type C. I add an edit that says "Living Person A is a B of type C". Another editor comes in and slightly changes the words, but the main point stands. A discussion on the talkpage is started where this addition is challenged with the argument that this edit is a "BLP violation". In addition to the sources already in the article, another editor provides a list of even more sources that identify Living Person A as being a B of type C. No real contestation of this characterization happens in the discussion, although some of the sources are discussed (not the ones in the article). Some days later, I return and basically say, "I think it is a good idea for us to include this type C characterization to help the reader." The response from the editor who started the conversation comes back, "what policy supports you?"
    That is how I see what happened. Is that what you think happened? If so, please let me know where I went astray with WP:ONUS.
    jps (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't provide a basis for your edit in policy when asked for one. The simple way to do this was "Reliable sources use this language, here is the quote. In fact, as this is BLP, here are several quotes from different sources." Instead you simply asserted your edit was correct according to WP:5, and started accusing another user of sealioning for not understanding your reasoning without you having explained it. You then used the length of the useless debate, which was largely useless because you had refused to defend your edit substantively, as evidence against another user at ANI. This is where you went astray.--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, as we identified above, you and I are at a difference as to whether WP:5 counts as a "basis in policy" or not in this context. Just to be clear: I really did feel like my edit was done in the spirit of following the five pillars. I briefly thought about citing WP:ENC instead, but felt that 5P was a bit clearer in describing my state of mind. It felt like a high-level question. It did not feel like a question about reliable sources. jps (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't pretend to have read every word of this discussion or its background, but I get the impression that Chetsford has been worn down by dealing with the flying-saucer-conspiracy-theorists. If they were banned from this encyclopedia as soon as they should be, rather than allowed to continue their disruption, then I doubt that any such issue would have arisen. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If they were banned Sorry for being slow, Phil (see my user page) but is "they" Chetsford or VPP? Do you support or oppose a topic ban for VPP (the Chetsford topic ban proposal was decisively resolved in the previous section). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think they are referring to the "flying-saucer-conspiracy-theorists". M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If so, I have a response above (14 May, in response to Silverscreen) which explains why whack-a-mole blocking is insufficient in itself to substantially stem the issues in this area. SnowRise let's rap 13:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, M.Bitton, I was, and Snow Rise, I'm afraid that that response, which I have read now, was one of the parts of this discussion that I hadn't read properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I recall the UAPDA article and what a time sink that was for editors. An "Act" never passed into law despite VPP's insistence that it had been. I don't know if all that was due to misrepresentation of sources or misreading and lack of competence, but either way it creates a burden for other editors. I think at least a warning after that episode would have been appropriate if not a topic ban. Anyway, support a topic ban now. fiveby(zero) 19:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It continues, continuing I note that despite VPP's claims to the contrary (e.g., here), they have, just yesterday, decided to continue particpating in this topic area, now by proxy and with the ironic, self-contradictory claim that I don't want to be involved in this further and will not. The simple fact is that VPP cannot and/or will not stay away from this topic area, and based upon their pre- and post-block behaviors (as evidenced above in this discussion), there is no compelling reason to believe their disruptive behaviors would not continue therein. WP:PACT seems relevant here (YES, I know it is an essay), but far, far too much editor time has already been exhausted by VPP's disruptive behaviors. It needs to stop. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, let him have last words towards an editor who's working on the same topics he used to.
    VPP didn't state how or when he was gonna fully leave the topic, and, from the very edit you showed, he is just tying up his loose ends.
    This calling for a ban based on this single edit, and, using as strong as wording as this, feels like WikiBullying to me. 2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    calling for a ban based on this single edit That is a total misrepresentation of my post. By the way, how is it that this is your only edit ever to enWiki? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a rotating IP. No edit history means nothing in these cases. But, yeah, this isn't a good-faith read of the concerns people have. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't follow WK:GF. I think my reply would be better without the last paragraph. About the edits, I'm a newbie who's been following the VPP/Chetsford thing (and also diving into policy pages in the meanwhile, lots to learn!). 2804:214:8742:52C5:213B:CB11:424C:C65B (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, this thread has gone stale and merits a “no consensus” close, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with closure, disagree strongly for "no consensus." There are twice as many editors supporting a topic ban than opposing it, and I note that several of the "oppose" !votes are based upon trusting VPP to "walk away" from the topic area. VPP has made no such claim, writing only that I think I'm done [with the topic area] (quote from here). And even if that claim really and truly was a promise to avoid the topic area, they have already broken that promise. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My count does not show a 2:1, but that's not really the major reason why I don't think consensus can be found here. The issue is that nine support !votes is very weak tea for a community sanction, especially when there is substantial contention that it is necessary and a lot of evidence has been presented that other parties whom we summarily let off without action (including the one originally reported here) contributed to the overall disruption. It's not exactly a good look if we let off the veteran editors with trouting and then penalize the reporting party, who has less than a year and half of experience with our rules, for behaviour that is roughly equivalent in disruptive influence--and which involved justified complaints about process and no brightline violations of content policies or WP:CIV.
    So, I have to agree with Bushranger here: I don't see how a closer could reasonably find the necessary level of consensus for a sanction in the above. Now, can I tell you with confidence that I don't think VPP will be back here in three months for similar dogged and problematic behaviour in this area? No, I must admit, I think that remains a not altogether unrealistic possibility. But taking the totality of the circumstances here, I think the result of this whole affair should be a (very short) length of WP:ROPE. SnowRise let's rap 21:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My count does not show a 2:1 Mine does. nine support !votes is very weak tea It isn't nine as you claim, it is 12, not counting the latest !vote !votes at the bottom of the page. But...whatever. Of course this isn't a strict numerical counting exercise, so I'll just note that my comments here and here stand. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Strike and edit. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE, and IMHO the fact the original report-ee not only originally only weakly supported a minor sanction but has changed to full oppose over the course of the discussion weights fairly notably. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, The Bushranger and Snow Rise are making a strong case for a “no consensus” close. The real question is how much longer this trainwreck will continue to twist in the wind at the top of AN/I. Jusdafax (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per JoJo Anthrax. There's clearly a consensus that VPP's behavior has been persistently sub-par in this topic area (however polite) and that it is best for the project that they should be removed from it. (If of course they have walked away from the topic as they claim, then the t-ban won't affect their editing anyway.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean there's obviously not clearly consensus, as several people believe there is no consensus. There might or might not be consensus per our policies, but if it's there, it's not clear. Especially given this whole incident has been triggered by pretty poor behaviour from two more established editors, and the quality of argument counts as much as the !votes.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per JoJo Anthrax and the egregious behavior at RSN. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support VPP's not a net positive in this area and it's clear from this topic, and the supporting diffs, that we're just going to be back here endlessly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't believe I read through about 85% of this enormous discussion. The whole discussion is stale and everyone has moved on. A variety of different editors have been the focal point and I'd prefer this discussion just close as "Over" (call it "No consensus" if you must). This discussion just needs to be closed and archived. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN. Looking at this whole mess (these whole messes), enough is enough; a sanction will probably help reduce time being wasted in the UFO topic area. Bon courage (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I came here after sifting through the drama and aspersions at a related AfD nomination. I am very sympathetic to the support votes and it is clear that VPP needs to be much more cautious about future behaviour. With this being said, it is clear to me from the competing TBAN proposals and the split in positions on this TBAN proposal, that the community is divided. I agree with Liz: for now, it seems folks have moved on. If things stay that way, great. If things devolve again and VPP continues to be disruptive or there is recurring drama between these two editors, then the next move will be to refer to this to ARBCOM. The only conclusion I have reached from reading this mess of a discussion is that the community is unable to resolve the issue. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN - The UFO editors have all shown themselves in this ANI thread to be willing to WP:BLUDGEON and sealion endlessly whenever their actions are criticized, and when (not if) this becomes a problem again we will go through the same headache. personally I think an indef and CBAN would be justified but I'll settle for WP:ROPE. Psychastes (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, who are the "UFO editors" you are accusing of bludgeoning and sealioning here?Boynamedsue (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m interested as well, since we appear to be into the “casting aspersions” stage of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jusdafax (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Newsjunkie Part 4

    [edit]

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

    I'm very sorry to bother you admins about this user again. She is unwilling to stop with her WP:REFCLUTTER, adding of unreliable sources, and pinging us on talk pages when she disagrees with us and then WP:BLUDGEONING the discussions with WP:WALLSOFTEXT.

    According to @Butlerblog, who filed the first ANI report on her, she doesn't listen to most arguments or objections. She continues to disruptively edit even though she has been explained why her edits are disruptive. It's a bit tiresome to have to repeat the same things she should already know. If this were a single instance, it might be overlooked, and no one would care. But it seems that her primary purpose here is to WP:REFCLUTTER and WP:OVERCITE articles all over the encyclopedia. It does not improve the encyclopedia even though she thinks it does. The same thing has been explained to her, but she continues to do it. 99% of her edits are adding sources, and a significant number of those are low-grade, soft media that falls somewhere between marginal and fancruft, so it is quite concerning. At this point, it's either that she's unable to understand it, making it a WP:CIR issue, or she simply doesn't care, which makes her WP:NOTHERE. Either way, it's a problem. Her block was for disruption. That should've inspired a change - instead, she hasn't changed - she just shifted the same behaviors to different articles. We don't have the time for these endless wall-of-text discussions on every low-grade source and overcited statement she put up. In fact, she was WP:NOTLISTENING on a discussion involving this site. [47] She has made constant false statements on the discussion and multiple editors (including me) said that the site is a fansite run by 3 fans of television. Butlerblog tried to make a message for her to improve, but she disregarded it, and continued her disruptive behavior. @EducatedRedneck warned her about WP:BLUDGEONING and Silently Editing Replies. @Wound theology (who filed a second report), Butlerblog, and I have advised her numerous times to stop, but she will not. She thinks Wikipedia is her own playground. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is disregarding guidance to minimize and avoid interaction with users they don't agree with or and are going after me by tracking my edits and editing pages they have never edited before. While some of the concerns may be legitimate, they decline to engage in substantive discussion and instead constantly rehash accusations and they also don't understand all the policy they are citing themselves, for example that is permissable to add social media links in the External Links section: Talk:Abigail Hawk#Social Media Account or that Youtube links from official sources are acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&oldid=1291556363 I reverted and they went here instead of discussing where all I did was cite applicable policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FBI_(TV_series)#c-Newsjunkie-20250521235700-Youtube_links_are_permitted WP:REFCLUTTER is an essay, not a policy. newsjunkie (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Just adding the diff I meant to add above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291556363) newsjunkie (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the other instance with the Merlin instance I started a discussion on the Reliable Sources page which did not have an official conclusion outcome and I haven't done anything about those sources since, and this user also discrupted it with a non-substantive argument that was not based on the substance of the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_477#c-NacreousPuma855-20250515190400-Newsjunkie-20250515180200 The incident with Educated Redneck was one instance where I didn't know the policy and I did it the correct way since. I believe the user above is holding a grudge based on a previous dispute on the CBS Page and is making personal arguments about the editor, rather than substantive ones about the content and is turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND newsjunkie (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s turning into a WP:BATTLEGROUND because of you. Not us, your disruptive editing. WP:HOUNDING "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" I have been trying to correct their problems, however given their history, it is clear that they haven't learned from their past behavior. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight." newsjunkie (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors opposed to her changes at the Merlin site, and I told her to drop the stick when she kept egging the discussion on when her site was opposed. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a substantive discussion based on policy as it was supposed to be, and the guidance for talk pages is: "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." newsjunkie (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ANI. Substantive claims have been made above and this is the place to focus on those claims. Stop quoting waffle because that looks like a deflection technique. Please either say nothing or respond to the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the links to the previous reports: [48], [49], [50]
    And here are the links where Butlerblog has warned her numerous times. [51], [52]
    Also, here is a link to the fan site discussion: [53] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no prolonged edit war on my part today and the reliable sources discussion was a legitimate discussion for the other instance where I brought it up as is the policy. I did one edit today on the page in question where I added legitimate information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291499614 and then I did one revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291561764 and also brought it up as a discussion where I briefly quoted policy in question with no response Talk:FBI (TV series)#c-Newsjunkie-20250521235700-Youtube links are permitted, which instead was reverted again by the other user instead of engaging in discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FBI_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1291561764 and then they brought it up here. And in both the other discussions cited above, there has been no further edit warring either, there was no active dispute currently and there were somewhat different circumstances in each with somewhat different issues being at stake where I made an effort to address concerns substantively even when others were making it personal. And in all the recent cases above, the editor who made the report here never edited the page before and only made an edit or got involved in the discussions because I was involved.newsjunkie (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly looking at this discussion and the edits by newsjunkie (talk · contribs), this seems like a WP:COMPETENCE issue, mainly, newsjunkie's apparent inability to drop the stick. wound theology◈ 03:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wound theology, can you provide some diffs? CIR is a serious charge. I see a lot of complaints about Newsjunkie but no diffs until towards the end of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the other ANI threads about newsjunkie:
    I haven't delved super deep into this particular discussion, but it seems like a continuation of their general modus operandi: adding large lists of low-quality sources (see [57] and arguing the point when asking for clarification and then receiving it (see [58]). I'm too busy to get involved in the content dispute between these two, but if they're continuing to act like they did elsewhere (even after receiving a topic ban), then I do think that this might be a WP:CIR issue. A persistent inability to collaborate is unfortunately a no-go. wound theology◈ 06:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always been open to collaborate and *always* been civil which I think especially the diffs from the back and forth today should illustrate: i started a discussion and the other user did not engage or make any substantive argument as to why these particular sources were inappropriate in this instance (I know ANI is not really for content disputes so I'm not going to go into the details of the sources at the moment) and is just making accusations, including previously telling me to read policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abigail_Hawk&diff=prev&oldid=1291238695 that they clearly did not fully read or understand themselves: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-NacreousPuma855-20250520001200-Newsjunkie-20250520000100 Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 The other user is criticizing me for starting talk page page discussions based on policy and then refuses to engage themselves or to see how an exception to a policy might apply in particular instances: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600-Newsjunkie-20250519233300 I told the other user that they should consider minimizing interaction rather than seeking out conflict repeatedly Talk:Larry (cat)#c-Newsjunkie-20250510231500-NacreousPuma855-20250510231100--- I had abstained from making an ANI report myself because I felt it would escalate things and have been trying to treat these issues as the content disputes they are based on substantive arguments which they seem to have some trouble doing.
    Also just to clarify there has been no topic ban: both the reporting user and I were initially blocked for 24 hours from the CBS page which is I believe where this dispute originated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#c-The Bushranger-20250425235600-Claiming consensus when there are only two involved and personal attacks This was then extended in my case due to a specific page/talk block in connection with a separate dispute on the Harry Potter page where the reporting user was not involved at all, and since then I have been trying very carefully to follow the dispute resolution process by engaging in substantive discussion as much as possible and addressing specific concerns, including by going to the Reliable Sources Notice Board or doing a Request for Comment, where in both cases the reporting user left comments that did not really engage with the substance or were unhelpful Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS#c-NacreousPuma855-20250426235300-Newsjunkie-20250426172100 newsjunkie (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you linked this because it totally illustrates my point. I'm going to reproduce what Butlerblog (talk · contribs) (sorry for the ping!) told you there:

    I'm not going to be drawn into another extended sealioning discussion (which is why I did not respond to the first comment). If it were a single instance, it might be overlooked, and no one would care. But it seems that your primary purpose here is to WP:OVERCITE articles all over the encyclopedia. If you think this improves the encyclopedia, it doesn't. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors in multiple discussions, yet you persist. I don't think I could be any clearer than that. At this point, unless there is some visible change, there's zero point in further discussion because you're WP:NOTLISTENING.

    Edit wars about overcitation (as you clearly were here) and tedious sealioning (continuing to spam multiple replies across several edits) seem to be themes with you. I have not yet seen you demonstrate the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. wound theology◈ 10:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A review of the most recent content discussions might give the appearance that this is just a content dispute between newsjunkie and NacreousPuma855. However, I think the reason for that is other editors are simply fed up with it and don't have the time for the ensuing textwall discussions. The problem is that what newsjunkie views as improvement to the encyclopedia is not seen as an improvement by other editors. I have yet to see a content discussion in which a single editor agrees with newsjunkie's position. In the interactions I have had, it is easy to see why some editors just give up on it. I have struggled to put my finger on the exact nature of the issue, but I would certainly consider wound theology's CIR suggestion. Here are some thoughts and examples:
    • After a drawn-out discussion on use of primary sources and notability being thoroughly explained in this discussion, newsjunkie immediately followed that in other articles with more editing of the exact nature that was shot down in the discussion.[59][60]. Seeking input after edit warring, having standards explained to you by multiple editors, and then, going off to insert more of the same exact type of edits into other articles is either WP:NOTHERE or CIR.
    • The reason for citations is verifiability, not simply a way to insert external links as in this example of 14 primary source citations newsjunkie added to a single bullet point (Blue Bloods) here:[61]. Subsequent discussion,[62] was no different than any other content dispute with this editor - but I think the point that this one emphasizes that if there is not a clear black-and-white policy, newjunkie see these types of edits as "allowed" - essentially, if they are not "disallowed" then that means they are "allowed".
    • At Larry (cat), as per newsjunkie's typical editing pattern, there were 7 citations given to a single sentence - several articles, a youtube video, and two X.com links. I removed the most egregious items over three edits:[63], leaving 3 sources that were the most tightly focused (for a sentence that really didn't need more than one or two). One thing I noted in my edit summary was that The New York Times article cited was was superfluous and unnecessary as it made one single sentence mention of the topic being cited. The response to that was to edit the sentence to specifically quote the NYT article[64], later noting that The New York Times is reliable[65]. This gets at the crux of what newjunkie is unable to recognize - yes, the NYT is a reliable source - however, in this context, it is superfluous, and force-fitting the text so you can use a specific source doesn't actually lead to article improvement. The source, even specifically quoted, is still just a passing mention of what the source is citing.
    An uninvolved editor or admin trying to determine what's what here may simply see this as a series of content disputes. The problem is that these are consistent patterns, and the ensuing discussions follow the same consistent pattern. The same things are being explained as objections, and in every case, we get sealion responses like this: My only point is that arguments or objections should be substantive[66] - even though substantive arguments and objections have been consistently raised numerous times over the same types of issues. So what the core of the problem is, I'm not certain. But I do know that it is consistently disruptive. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All I will say is that yesterday in the edit that prompted this particular report I did seek consensus by opening discussion and the other editor who filed this report did not. Overcitation and the use of particular sources has to be considered case by case in each context. In the Larry the Cat case as I explained, I only added an additional citation to address a very specific edit by another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289462762 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&oldid=1289463661and so I was asking how that policy applied in that case in that context which was barely addressed by the other users. In the final edit did that has stood since then I explicitly removed several references to address the overcitation concerns while also trying to address the original issue https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289828045 In the other instance I also sought input at the no original research board several days ago to try and understand how common knowledge specifically applies for geographic places that one recognizes though I have gotten no response (I just realized today that I had forgotten to sign it somehow by mistake, though I think it was clear anyway:Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#c-Newsjunkie-20250522144300-Using TV Series or Film imagery or video as Primary Source for filming location) There has been no ongoing edit warring in the older examples cited. Most of my edits across multiple page have clearly been reliable sources for the claims made with no objection, the main objections have been coming repeatedly from only two editors who have been explicitly seeking out my edits, with the reporting user in this instance being the most disruptive. newsjunkie (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People aren't seeking out your edits to make objections. You've been adding low-quality linkcruft across the encyclopedia and refusing to put down the stick or get the bigger picture. wound theology◈ 14:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why it is a CIR issue. You seem to think that each of your edits must be considered case by case, but as noted in my post above, many editors (myself included) simply do not have time to address every edit that is problematic. Once it has been explained to you as it has been multiple times, you should have the competence to recognize the difference between what is expected/acceptable and what is refclutter. As to seeking out your edits, yes, there are editors that are going to do that because has been no change in your established pattern, as very clearly indicated by my first bullet point example above. As wound theology noted above, this isn't simply to make objections. It's to fix the mess. If your edits were productive, no one would object. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Adding the correct diff for the Larry the Cat edit) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=next&oldid=1289464721 newsjunkie (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I did not file this report because of the FBI (TV Series) article. I filed this report because of Newsjunkie's CIR and sealioning (false responses) issues. When she disregarded Butlerblog's Article Assessment message after a discussion where she added a fan site that credited her, that's when I considered a fourth report. And then looking at her continued messing up of articles was the final decision. She is pretending that what she did in the past didn't happen. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They filed the report immediately after the FBI article interaction yesterday when I reverted and they declined to engage.
    I brought up the website in question at the Reliable Sources noticeboard as is appropriate and explained repeatedly that I had zero editorial control over the page regardless of what the other issues may be and hadn't done anything with that source following the discussion. newsjunkie (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop with the sealioning please. I'm not going to explain why I filed the report again. I didn't engage because the same editing of unreliable sources, overciting, and sealioning discussions has been consistent from her across multiple articles. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may help to reflect on your history with that reference in particular: you added the NYT article named "New prime minister or not, Larry the cat is here to stay." Jan 25 where it stuck for a while. Then when it was removed on May 9 you added it back again two hours later, then it was removed again on May 10 but you added it back yet again three minutes later. Finally, we come to your May 11 final edit you mention above, where the article was allowed to lack that reference for just over four hours. I didn't find any other editor who added that reference.--Noren (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added it specifically with an attributed phrase in the end to address this edit by another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1289462762 and also to a degree also this previous edit https://https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_(cat)&diff=prev&oldid=1286593498 so that the characterization of the account is attributed to a specific source rather than written in Wikipedia's voice as before. I removed other references (including one that was citing another) to address the overcitation concerns and because they were all about one priime minister versus multiple. I was trying to find the most fair way to characterize the account with attribution/sourcing since the existing phrasing had gotten challenged twice. newsjunkie (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One, please learn to use the [example.com link text] format. Two, you're only proving that you are unable to drop the stick. Noren (talk · contribs) outlined a clear example of a slow-burn edit war. Your response is to simply justify your actions with an mindnumbing series of raw links that don't actually pertain to the problem with your editing style. In every content dispute I've seen you in, the pattern has been exactly the same: make an egregious, overcited statement, wage a slow-burn edit war when it gets reverted, then sealion or wikilawyer when policy is explained to you (often through walls of text). wound theology◈ 08:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty obvious that her behavior isn't changing. This has been consistent from her for 1 almost 2 months. What started with a Harry Potter disagreement has now turned into a site wide WP:OVERCITE and sealioning WP:WALLSOFTEXT discussions, all because she can't drop the stick and agree to WP:CIR. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to ping. Newsjunkie seems to have a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia. However, they struggle with certain community norms (WP:OVERCITE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:VNOT, WP:BLUDGEON). They have had limited success in aligning their behavior with these norms. (E.g., I have seen few WP:PRIMARY sources from them in recent edits, but the long arguments continue.) Their desire to understand why something is not accepted can come off as WP:BADGER and WP:WIKILAWYER, but I do believe it's done in an attempt to improve. However, this drains significant volunteer time responding to them. If they could learn to notice when they're the only one convinced of something, and then disengage, I feel that would reduce the issue to a manageable level. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That had been my original assessment as well, which is essentially WP:NOTHERENORMS. And if they could learn to notice when they're the only one convinced of something, and then disengage that would help. However, lest it be lost in the mess above, the origin is that newsjunkie believes these are case-by-case issues and that if no one objects to a specific OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT edit, or there is no clear black-and-white policy that states something is not OK, then it's OK. Most of their main space edits are of this nature, many of which have not yet been addressed (the massive cruft added to Blue Bloods and Boston Blue for example) which indicates that either there isn't a desire to align their behavior with these norms or they are simply unable to understand them. The OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT editing is what has to change. I have not seen a shift in editing style that would indicate either an understanding of our norms or a willingness to align with them. As WP:CIR notes: A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up. What, then, is the path forward? ButlerBlog (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking about starting to clean up those 2 pages. Also, she recently added a YouTube link and am wondering if it’s acceptable or not [67]. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What, then, is the path forward? Since we haven't had any reassurance from Newsjunkie that they'll change, I think the best path forward is an indef as a regular admin action. If they can convince an uninvolved administrator that they'll change their behavior, all the better. Otherwise, it stops the disruption. I suggest regular admin action rather than community indef/CBAN to make it easier to appeal. If they promise to change and don't, reblocks are cheap and easy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I was thinking. Since she hasn't been changing her behavior, administrator action is the best course of action to take. I support an indef block by an admin. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have made an effort to change as I have always tried to engage in discussion and trying to follow the dispute resolution process as best as I could and there have not been any ongoing edit wars on any of the affected pages. There was no policy violation in the edits that sparked this report and there is no policy violation in adding Youtube links that are official, which again is an example of the user singling out and tracking my edits on pages they have never contributed to before for what seems to be personal reasons and causing me distress. How I am I supposed to show the correct behavior? By not discussing at all in any individual case when each case (or link) is a bit different and in some cases the other user isn't fully correct about policy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abigail_Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 newsjunkie (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop sealioning. We're not going to ask you again. You say you believe you made an effort to change, you said that before and you didn't. As Wound Theology mentioned above, we are not seeking out your edits for personal reasons. You are still adding low-quality fan sites and overciting across the encyclopedia and Sealioning discussions. And stop pretending that what you have done very recently didn't happen. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That you continue to insist your edits were fine when- as far as I can tell- not a single other editor has agreed with you, is part of the problem. It sends the signal that the problems will continue unless you are blocked.
    I understand that your interpretation of policy supports your actions. The thing is, Wikipedia isn't a court of law, it's a social club. Even if your read of policy is correct, if it is rejected overwhelmingly by the community, it's called disruptive editing and results in a block. Put another way, if I went into a Flat Earth Society meeting and preached that the world is an oblate spheroid, I would be right, but I also would very quickly be shown the door. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The example I cited above here is exactly an example where another editor did agree with me: Talk:Abigail Hawk#c-BD2412-20250520010300-NacreousPuma855-20250519234600 . I understand your argument, but there have been plenty of edits on multiple pages where there has been no objection at all or no discussion of anything, and if the objections always seem to come from the same two people, is that the overwhelming community? newsjunkie (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last 2 responses just reinforce my point that you see each edit as case-by-case issues and that if no one objects to a specific OVERCITE, PRIMARY, and VNOT edit, or there is no clear black-and-white policy that states something is not OK, then it's OK. At this point, you should be capable of editing productively, yet every OVERCITE addressed results in a drawnout discussion to justify it. Just because you have plenty of edits on multiple page where there has been no objection doesn't mean there are no objections. There are plenty of instances that are not OK, which I pointed out above, but there simply isn't time in the day to have a drawn out discussion of Every.Single.One (which inevitably happens each time). If you believe [you] have made an effort to change, then where are the edits attempting to address other issues? I have not gone through every edit to tag each one, but I tagged a significant number of overcite problems that you've shown zero effort in correcting, such as Boston Blue, where instead of addressing tagged issues, you've spent the last month adding additional ones. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not the only one editing or visiting that page and I don't think it's up to me alone (or any other individual editor alone) to address all issues, and so far nobody else has felt the need to do so. If edits are built upon and there are no reversions and no explicit objections, isn't one to assume consensus? newsjunkie (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of that example, the line that says Following the official announcement of the spin-off, outlets speculated about the new show's possible filming location followed by 11 citations appears that you are the editor that added those. That has been tagged as excessive. Suggesting that is (1) not an explicit objection and (2) not your responsibility to clean up just reinforces what has been said already. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean to suggest that the tag is not an explicit objection, but just to point out that nobody else has felt the need to address it so far, as far as I understand the responsibility to address an issue does not fall *more* on the person who added content than it does on anyone else. newsjunkie (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And is it appropriate for the reporting user to just delete cited content https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&diff=0&oldid=1292396732 without further input while this discussion is still ongoing? And would I be allowed to object or would that be editwarring? newsjunkie (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It's a clutter of unnecessary information and overciting. 2. Please learn to put brackets in urls. [ at the beginning, and ] at the end. More information on Blue Bloods can be inputted on the new sub-topic below. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that I put a closure request on WP:CR#WP:ANI#Newsjunkie Part 4. A closure would be useful, as leaving it open will likely result in more disruption and more time wasted on reports. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again removing large sections of cited, accurate neutrally phrased information from an articles you never edited before without discussion primarily because I was the one who added it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods_season_14&diff=prev&oldid=1293607011 which can be considered disruptive per WP:REMOVECITE newsjunkie (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not being removed 'without discussion'. Based on the title of this section, this is at least the fourth time that multiple people have explained the reason to you. Unfortunately, you do not seem to be able to hear the many explanations, but that doesn't mean they haven't been given to you.
    Checking the contribs of a known disruptive editor and cleaning up after them would not be considered 'disruptive' in any way. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the guideline I cited above, cited, neutrally phrased, accurate, pertinent information should not be considered disruptive. The Colin Morgan page also now has a single article as a reference anyway, but before that existed what I added was perfectly within the core policies/guidelines as i detailed above as was the Blue Bloods information of being neutrally phrased, verified and no original research. Individual issues could be addressed more minimally without removing so much reliably sourced information per WP:PRESERVE. These are content disputes about what should be included and going out of your way to seek out articles you've never edited before with editors you know you disagree with on that issue is also disruptive. And especially doing so while this conversation is still ongoing and I still don't know if it's appropriate for me to revert or not if I disagree as so far I've refrained from doing. newsjunkie (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another example of you ignoring the repeated explanations and trying to claim that everyone has to treat your overciting individually and separately. As you've seen from the (minimum) four other times you've been reported for this, the consensus among other editors is that this is not required.
    It would save everyone a lot of time and effort if you could find some way of not being able to see those explanations, that way you'd be able to discuss what's actually going on with the editors above who are discussing whether an indef ban might be the appropriate remedy here. There doesn't seem to be a lot of admin interest right now, but if you continue to refuse to listen and refuse to discuss, that won't last forever. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Was writing this at the same time as @MilesVorkosigan's comment above, so there's some overlap, but I decided to go ahead and include it anyway because it's gets at the crux of the problem with your editing.)
    This is yet other, very recent example, that reinforces the exact point being made (and unfortunately also possibly being lost) in this thread. You seem to think that if it's verifiable, that means it should be included. That's an incorrect premise. If it's included, it has to be verifiable, but the reverse is not true: just because it's verifiable does not make it suitable for inclusion. A lot of what you contribute falls under sections 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 of what wikipedia is not. And that is why you're getting pushback on these types of contributions. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one refusing to discuss. I'm a little confused as to what subtopics being referred to as 2.8, 2.9,2.10 are (seems to refer to the main list above rather than the content subtopics?) and I still think those debates fall under content dispute, but I think there could be more specific arguments about how any of the content does or does not meet the specific individual subtopics. Even the linked essay about "fandom" mainly seems to mention the importance of verifiability and reliable sources. As do he guidelines on "due weight" and the essay about Fancruft, which seems to be an issue that is regularly under debate and not settled, and also not policy violations. newsjunkie (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also untrue. You continue to pretend that you can't see what the concerns of other editors are and refuse to address them, the oblique reference in your last line about things not being 'settled' and not being policy violations is the closest you've come to actually replying to the real issue.
    I take that last line to mean that you don't care about the opinions of other editors and you're going to continue pushing to add things against consensus. I don't see any other way to interpret it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what I said that is untrue. I specifically tried to address the concerns as they've been previously stated (best I could given confusion as to what was being referred to). Content discussions are based on consensus for individual articles, and shouldn't really be the subject here anyway. And content was now removed from a third page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_Blue&diff=prev&oldid=1293628221 even though there actually had been some prior consensus on that page to keep it: Talk:Boston Blue#c-BD2412-20250222003600-David O. Johnson-20250221030700 newsjunkie (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you. Unfortunately, after having had this explained to you repeatedly over months by many different editors, you remain unable to hear what anyone is saying to you. Sadly, I don't see any way of helping you change your behavior and would therefore support the ban mentioned above. We can't keep spending all of this time and effort when communication is apparently impossible. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly am I supposed to say to show that I am understanding concerns or trying to address them? Am I never allowed to disagree with any content deletion if seems to go against existing policies? newsjunkie (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your first question. In order to show that you understand the concerns, you would need to discuss the actual concerns that people have explained at length. You'd have to stop acting like this is a content dispute, after a dozen people have told you it is not. You'd have to stop saying that you don't understand what everyone keeps telling you. What about that isn't clear?
    And literally no one said anything about you not being allowed to disagree with content deletion, so the fact that you asked that question is yet more evidence that you are *utterly* determined to not listen. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least some comments from other editors have suggested that at last parts of the issues brought up here ARE content disputes. That's why this is so confusing. Which specific concern do you think I have not tried to address? newsjunkie (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn’t confusing, you just refuse to listen.
    I have answered this exact question several times now, and you always pretended you couldn’t see the answer. Many other editors have answered it as well.
    At this point, I don’t see any use in repeating the explanation for you to ignore again. Until you manage to show some sign of having read what everyone has already told you, I have to give up on replying. Sadly, this is just a waste of time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying "the reason" or the "the concerns" but not saying what the reason is. Only "overciting" specifically as mentioned in your very first comment? That is not a hard and fast rule and depends on context and what is being cited specifically and should be discussed in the relevant page context (and doesn't necessarily call for wholesale deletion of content) @Butlerblog then mentioned verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and "what wikipedia is not" guidelines" though just based on the numbering I'm not even sure which were being referred to exactly, though I tried to address arguments that were previously made in related contexts or what I think was being referred to. Usage of Primary Sources was also mentioned above, but again use of those also depends on context. The deletions on the pages I cited have come with statements that the sources are "unreliable" though no such discussion/determination has occurred on the relevant talk pages about which specifically are unreliable or why. And then a lot of that does starting becoming a content discussion which is not even appropriate really for discussion here as even other editors have said but it is appropriate for discussion on the relevant article talk pages. And the reporting user has been continuing to refer to this discussion on the article talk pages or has responded here instead of responding there just about objections to content removal, not even any reversions or anything, which I am still not sure whether they would be appropriate to do based on the BOLD editing principle. newsjunkie (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so you aren’t quite as unaware of what everyone is saying, you just don’t like it?
    It would have saved a lot of time if you admitted that instead of pretending you couldn’t see everyone else’s posts. But that just proves repeating the explanations for you is just as worthless as I thought. I guess we’ll see if the admins want to give you another chance, or decide this has been enough. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never pretended I didn't see anyone's posts or I that I didn't like the policy and I have tried to address them as best as I could. You said "no one said anything about you not being allowed to disagree with content deletion." But if these cited guidelines aren't black and white and can depend on the page context and interpretation, what is the correct behavior if there is disagreement in a particular instance? Never add anything that I think is appropriate under policy because somebody might disagree/see the policy differently? Never revert anything if something seems allowable under policy or the talk page consensus seems unclear and never express disagreement? Post everything on a talk page first asking am I allowed to add this even if it seems to fall under allowed policy? The main suggested pathway is discussion on the article talk page, which I have tried to do. What at least partly prompted this discussion was one revert of content deletion I felt was unjustified when I started a talk page discussion and the reporting editor went here instead of engaging and reverted again themselves. And was a pattern of seeking out edits of pages they have never edited before in order to apply a policy in a very strict way due to personal conflicts rather than to discuss in context. newsjunkie (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just more lying and ignoring what people have said to you. These questions have all been answered multiple times.
    Your decision to be dishonest and pretend you can’t remember anything people say and keep asking the same questions over and over and over is a big part of the issue. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not lying or being dishonest. As I demonstrated in a previous paragraph, I clearly did repeat what people said and what you said in a previous paragraph. And what the policies are. I wasn't saying people had specifically said those examples I gave, but asking in practice what I should actually do in a dispute situation where there is a disagreement, such as if I disagree with a content deletion in any one instance, which you have said I am allowed to do if I understood correctly. newsjunkie (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the WP:WALLOFTEXT discussion strikes back in this report. This is a consistent pattern from Newsjunkie. It proves she is WP:NOTLISTENING and unwilling to drop the stick. As EducatedRedneck pointed out above, an indef block is a good proposal. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was explicitly asking what it is I *am* affirmatively supposed to do to address these disputes that do not exist in a black and white area, other than never objecting to anything if it's been explicitly said "no one said anything about you not being allowed to disagree with content deletion." What specific policy or guideline am I supposed to affirmatively supposed to say I will follow and how am I supposed to handle the fact that these guidelines are not black or white, have exceptions, depend on context, and have room for interpretation? Especially if the edits don't seem to violate core policies like neutral point of view, verifiability or no original research, there isn't necessarily clear talk page consensus and the main dispute resolution guideline there is is to attempt to engage in discussion? newsjunkie (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike 2 (Blue Bloods)

    [edit]

    I just cleaned up the Blue Bloods article, which contained severe overcitation and unnecessary information courtesy of Newsjunkie. But now like many other pages, she thinks its okay to have this unnecessary content on Wikipedia, when several other users have opposed to this. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not all that information was mine. There had been no sustained discussion. Talk:Blue Bloods#c-Butlerblog-20250526185100-Content cleanup needed (per recent tags) and I think it could also be argued that this is a case where the "removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption." newsjunkie (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, some of the cited content was unnecessary, 80% of the sources were overcites, almost all of the unnecessary content was courtesy of Newsjunkie and a marginal chunk of unreliable sources cited some of that content. Do you think its okay to have 6-11 sources to support a sentence? You are not taking responsibility for your actions. You've been WP:OVERCITEing the whole encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not Fandom. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not the venue for content disputes. This is drifting off the topic. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the issues are such a major removal of cited information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&diff=prev&oldid=1292416073 should have been discussed more substantively and for longer and I believe several reliable sources and at least some relevant information has been removed in a way that is disruptive. newsjunkie (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, this sub-section is about Newsjunkie's continued disruptive edting, particularly to this page before I cleaned it up. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't done any reversion because I really don't know what's appropriate at this point with this discussion still ongoing, and I have no issue with a clean-up tag being inserted, but that should be a step to initiate broader discussion, not necessarily immediate large-scale cited content removal without any further discussion when there had been implied consensus for a significant length of time until now. newsjunkie (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing policy suggests that with larger changes one should be WP:CAUTIOUS newsjunkie (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read what Butlerblog mentioned above. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My most recent comments are about editing behavior not content (what specifically should or should not be included and why). newsjunkie (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone has stated their cases. Newsjunkie maintains their behavior was acceptable. NacreousPuma, ButlerBlog, and myself believe it was not. Attempts to convince each other of this have not proven to be fruitful. I suggest we all disengage and let uninvolved editors/admins look at the evidence presented. Further back-and-forth will likely clutter the thread, and make it harder for an admin to close. If an uninvolved editor has questions or wants more evidence, they need but ask. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I think this discussion is now too unwieldy and long-winded for any admin to bother getting involved. wound theology◈ 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I think you're correct in that assumption. The key items are lost in the mess. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsjunkie is still overciting and adding pointless references to articles while this report is open. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hardly contributed anything in about a week.... newsjunkie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe MilesVorkosigan (talk · contribs) is talking about this this, which yes, are two inappropriate references -- Google Play and Amazon.co.uk pages are not WP:RSs. wound theology◈ 14:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this falls under WP:AMAZON for basic release information. One confirms Harper Collins as publisher and one the specific Imprint. They both also contain the official biography of the author clarifying that this indeed is the right person. The article was about the rights being sold for the book title at the book festival months earlier and also his representation by United Artists (a reference elsewhere in the Article.) newsjunkie (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in getting into another content dispute on WP:ANI. wound theology◈ 17:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this falls under your inability to understand that many, many editors are telling you that you're adding too many unneeded references to articles.
    Notice that here, again, you are doing what several people pointed out and acting like this addition needs to be addressed in isolation when it's actually yet more evidence of an ongoing behavior that you are unable, or unwilling, to change. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see this as a content dispute. There is an obvious pattern of intractable behaviour that is clearly not consistent with community norms. The mess that was the Blue Bloods article is problematic by any standard. Just a single example: In 2023, the show was renewed through season 14, with the cast and producers taking a pay cut to help secure a 14th season, for which production began in late fall 2023 after the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.[161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][13][169][170] That there were many, many more before a 153,000 character cleanup that reduced 437 citations to 118 (still excessive, IMHO, for an article of this size) is really at the crux of this. It needs to be stopped. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for clarification about that particular citation (I'm not saying it's right or wrong) but the bulk of those particular references completely predated my significant involvement and had been placed there to verify each successive renewal of the show from one year to the next. See this revision from February 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Bloods&oldid=1208602513 I had assumed that was appropriate when I started editing the page (and I may have been wrong!) which was why I personally chose not to remove them. I only added the three at the end: One specifically about the pay cut and two about the Sag Aftra strike. There are other instances where I did add all the citations considered to be overcited (though not unverified), though I still think that could have been discussed individually before deletion, especially with more up-to-date information about production and ratings etc now missing post 2013/2019. newsjunkie (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive and persistent biased AMPOL editing from an IP editor

    [edit]
    The Final Bringer of Truth indef'd, with TPA now revoked. As the logged-out IP appears long-term stable, I've added a block to 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Believe this will be all here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The IP editor 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 became involved with two AMPOL articles that I wrote—One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Donald Trump's memecoin dinner—and one I did not, $Trump, over the weekend. Their edits have been particularly inflammatory towards both pages and have resulted in an array of reverts, even for innocuous edits. The most disruptive of these efforts has been at the formermost page. Their work is correlated with a series of edits made by Special:Contributions/The Final Bringer of Truth User:The Final Bringer of Truth; in particular, this revision and this revision. In addition, The Final Bringer of Truth edited the lattermost page, though I am not familiar with that situation and will discuss it in less detail here. The Final Bringer of Truth's large edits both involved portraying the bill and the dinner negatively by excessive citations. In the original revision for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, The Final Bringer of Truth empirically stated that it was the "largest upward transfer of wealth from the working and laboring classes and the poor to the rich ... in human history" by using citations largely from op-eds. On the dinner page, The Final Bringer of Truth wrote in the second sentence of the lede that it had been "described as 'an orgy of corruption' and 'the Mount Everest of American corruption.'" While not technically erroneous, the claim lacks attribution and is relatively undue given that it was previously a one-sentence lede.

    The IP editor has edited in the same areas and defended the same text—a particularly striking correlation for Donald Trump's memecoin dinner, which had received no edits from other users until that point, leading me to assume that The Final Bringer of Truth and 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 are the same person. Amid a contentious topic designation for these articles, the IP editor has been combative and unresponsive in terms of their edits. Chronologically, their efforts began by accusing me of being unfamiliar with policy, asserting that the content must stay to another user, and suggesting that I am incompetent after discussing the article with other editors and deciding to merge it as the primary author. 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has repeatedly claimed, "Leads are required to mention topics of significant controversy related to the article topic," but has so far failed to give any indication that the content in their edits is worth inclusion beyond stonewalling.

    The edit summary that encouraged me to seek ANI as an avenue was from the talk page, where 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 decried the "pro-conservative bias of this article" as "truly sickening"—a blanket assertion that lacks no basis, especially when considering that the vast majority of the article describes the history of the bill. The comment itself seems to suggest that a crusade against "propaganda for the Trump/Musk administration" is necessary; lacking substance or specific examples, this comment seems to suggest that the IP editor is unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. It is my impression that, given this edit summary, the talk page comment, and The Final Bringer of Truth's username, that this user holds a clear and unshakeable bias. More broadly, they are unwilling to cooperate with other editors and appear unrelenting in adding this content.

    There exist four comments discussing the lede on Talk:One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In "Criticism in lead", 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 did not directly address concerns that the content violated NPOV, instead only opting to change "note" to "argue". The IP editor added, "I hope this works," a strange comment that suggests that they are unfamiliar with the process and are simply seeking to make slight changes but keep the broader content without discussing the critical argument writ large. While 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has moved the section "in the spirit of compromise," it is clear that any attempt to follow WP:BRD has been forgone. That is dangerous on a contentious topic.

    In addition, it would be worth noting some minor edits made to other pages, particularly in regards to the "See also" sections of $Trump and United States Department of Homeland Security. In both cases, 2600:4041:5CE9:B300:9929:8E3D:81FC:94A9 has made insinuations that $Trump is a host of financial crimes and that the Department of Homeland Security is the Schutzstaffel without adequately defending their edits in an edit summary. When the IP editor does use edit summaries, they have misrepresented the edits at issue, including claiming that a move was a "removal" or describing their edits as the "clean version" while removing the {{POV}} tag. I am suggesting here that the IP editor be banned from editing in this topic for several months if they are unable to show that they can be constructive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a friendly reminder that CheckUsers can't publicly connect an IP to a user account. However, that being said, I support the idea that the IP should be topic banned until they can show they can be constructive. » Gommeh (he/him) 17:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion occurred on Discord. I merged the article after a user proposed merging into an uncreated article about Trump meetings and an administrator suggested that $Trump would be a better target. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...merge discussions should not take place on Discord. We have article talk pages. That's one reason they exist. Doing it off-wiki is a stupendously bad look that, y'know, shuts out the majority of the community. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Discussing a merge on anywhere other than Wikipedia, especially on a platform with private messaging like Discord, has an effect that runs contrary to the principle that Wikipedia is an open, free encyclopedia. Granted I don't know exactly what was said, who it was said to, or when, but this may be some sort of canvassing as well. Pretty much any discussion of that type needs to be conducted on-wiki to preserve the project's integrity. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not a formal discussion, it was an off-handed comment that I agreed with. The decision to merge rested solely with me. Regardless, focusing on the merge here is missing the forest for one branch of a tree. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you used off-wiki discussion as your sole rationale in your edit turning the article into a redirect! That's a bad idea for reasons that I assume are now obvious - if someone disagrees, it doesn't give them much to engage with beyond reverting and saying "no". --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not missing the “forest for the trees”, since the reason we’re here is that you’re upset that I suggested you might be incompetent for not realizing why you shouldn’t delete an article with the explanation being “Per private communication.” Indeed you even admit openly in the above to canvassing and off wiki coordination and planning and conspiring with other editors to push your Trumpist agenda. My god, if this isn’t a bannable offense, what is? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know exactly what was said, who it was said to, or when - This. We don't know it was [only] an off-handed comment, especially since you explicitly said there was a discussion. Which was it? A discussion or an off-handed comment? And either way, we assume good faith, but it'd be nice if there was a paper trail (so to speak) one way or another. If somebody comments, or discusses, off-wiki, and you agree with it, the next move is to start a move discussion on-wiki - The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By my read of things: elijahpepe asked for advice in the Discord server, and he ultimately decided to do a unilateral bold merge per WP:MERGEINIT, but he wrote a poorly-thought out edit summary that made it look like he was invoking consensus when that's not what he meant to do. Regardless, even if there had been an offwiki merge discussion, it doesn't count toward anything and this is effectively a standard bold merge. Now, if people had been canvassed and came to !vote on his behalf onwiki, that would be a different story. But that's not what's happened. Regardless of the Discord issue, the IP is pretty squarely WP:NOTHERE except to push a POV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You focused heavily on @The Final Bringer of Truth: in your comment but didn't notify them; you're required to do so in this situation, I think. I've gone ahead and notified them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I made some edits while logged out. What of it? It was not intentional. My page kept crashing and logging me out. This seems to be a case of Boomerang, as the reporting editor’s conduct shows many egregious violations beginning with 1) Literally and unironically claiming ownership of articles “he dared edit MY articles I wrote myself with my bare hands” go read the way he phrases it, very sad stuff (many people wrote those articles; did you think no one was going to make an article on the congressional budget bill without you, hero? No one owns articles) 2) coordinating off wiki by his own admission , which i had to reprimand him for (he literally disappeared a page with the justification offered being “per private off-wiki communication”-outrageous!); 3) repeatedly displaying competence issues. Writing the article originally did not grant you special privileges to delete it once others had contributed to it based on an Off-wiki discussion. 4) Additionally, you seem to be unwilling to listen to my reasons for including that content , but I explained slowly and carefully to you many times why it was appropriate for Big Beautiful Bill article to include 1 sentence (I’d like to make absolutely clear to all of you who may have been fooled by his endless stream of verbiage that this editor is objecting to my including 1 sentence in the article lead) that stated that critics of the Big Beautiful Bill have said it is a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, which was voluminously referenced. First it would lack balance if our article failed to mention such a notable aspect of the bill in the lead. Second, lead policy requires significant matters of controversy to be covered in the lead. Third, as to your spurious assertion that it does not belong in the lead because it is mentioned in the article, this is the opposite of how things work, since content must be present in the main article to be in the lead, which obviously should be connected to the article. 5) Not everything is about you. The change from “noted” to “argued” was in response to another commenter on the talk page who made a reasonable claim that “noted” was inappropriate, and so I made the change in response to this persuasive objection. 6) You are intentionally trying to deceive the other editors here, since you know very well that the sentence debated over said that "critics said that it was the largest transfer of wealth" and that I did not state the criticism as an empirical fact. Very dishonest and dishonorable. 7) The name is obviously tongue in cheek. What’s wrong- i thought comedy was legal again? (Should you really be critiqueing the user names of others when yours is a symbol of white nationalist trolls? Again, Boomerang applies) 8) It gives me no pleasure to say that the reporting user Elijah whatever must be banned (though his talk page evidences a long, sordid history of misdeeds) as they have openly admitted to off wiki coordination, canvassing, and conspiracy to promote a particular political viewpoint (and in a quite organized manner, on a discord). Cheers, friend. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to first reiterate that I used the wrong term to describe what occurred off-wiki. I was given advice by another editor to merge the dinner page into another article that did not exist. An administrator joined in and suggested $Trump as a viable target. That was the extent of the conversation. I should have said in my summary that I was merging the page because there was not enough content to sustain a separate article, and I still believe that most editors would come to that conclusion if I were to open a merge request or an AfD right now. I apologize for the confusion.
    As far as the rest of this comment goes, there is much exaggerated here. The back-and-forth was limited to moving the sentence below the lede—as you mentioned, "content must be present in the main article to be in the lead"—on the bill page three times, the second time because I was falsely accused of vandalism. I did not revert you on the dinner page; merging an article that was not a redirect previously is not a revert. I did not "[l]iterally and unironically [claim]" to have owned either article, and I haven't been involved with either article enough to even falsely assert a claim of ownership.
    Including excessive citations to prove a point does not necessarily mean that something is worth including. I felt that the article was biased against the bill, rather than being a neutral space, and I was reaffirmed in that conviction by several other editors who expressed concern at this particular sentence. You still have not put down the stick when it comes to this sentence. Combined with your statement that the article is biased, that led me to believe that WP:POVPUSHING may be occurring, in addition to inflammatory statements that you have made against me—even now, insisting that I have "competence issues".
    In terms of the purpose of the lede, statements made in the lede do not necessarily need to be "duplicative". I often write biographies of living people and I rarely need to directly copy and paste a sentence unless the subject's article is so small that it is necessary. Karoline Leavitt, for instance, provides a summary of what follows, not a verbatim report. Aquillion addressed this point very well here.
    Here is what I will suggest. Rather than flinging accusations for the next day or so, let's return to the talk page and discuss this, which I arguably should have done in the first place. If there is such a strong response to this bill—I wouldn't be familiar with that as I do not read op-eds or think tank pieces—then that should be reflected in sources beyond what I just mentioned. I am going to WP:AGF here; I suggest you do the same. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given this [[68]], this seems to be very much an advocacy account that is here to right great wrongs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has removed the POV tag from the article One Big Beautiful Bill Act twice now and is repeatedly reverting edits to the lead, reinserting the same content multiple times without consensus. I’ll raise this issue on the talk page but I felt it was necessary to mention it here. 206.57.166.53 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now made them aware of wp:3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act#%22Voting_by_Democratic_Representatives%22_section_is_misleading
    This editor is incredibly aggressive in their tone and approach, accusing fellow editors at random and taking unproductive approaches. Tofflenheim (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s just frustrating discussing the article with you since you don’t understand [[WP:Synth]]. It’s an excellent read. I promise you’ll learn something new you don’t know now. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care how frustrated you are, the way you express yourself is way out of line. You have tons of people in disagreement with you over your conduct and can't seem to self reflect at all. Your only move is to accuse others of being ignorant, incapable of reading, or other random insults. Tofflenheim (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is here to make friends. This isn’t about your feelings. Wikipedia:Competence is required. You can’t just keep repeatedly arguing on behalf of a synthesis that isn’t present in sources. Bring sources not pointless tone policing. Great, you’re offended by my tone. Then listen when I explain to you the first time about why you can’t make synthesis that isn’t present in a source. Cheers, friend The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree that competence is required. Which is why its puzzling that you jump into the talk page accusing me of that when your own sources literally explain the hypothetical I was giving: "Two Republicans missed the vote early Thursday — and if they had voted, three additional Democratic “no” votes could have fought it to a tie, blocking the bill, at least at that moment. The GOP would have had to win the votes of one member who voted “present” or flip one of the two who voted “no” on the bill. Hogg speculated that Republicans would probably “have figured out a way to pass it if it failed” due to a tie vote. But he said that’s no excuse for Democrats to make their task easier."
    Now what? What's the next insult? Tofflenheim (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should work on your reading comprehension. The passage you cited supports my point not yours. Think about it what that passage actually says. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hint: it is saying that the democratic deaths were decisive, which is the claim you keep trying to remove. Think about what you read, and think about what you write next time. Cheers, friend The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you replying here instead of the talk page? This is not the right place. Happy to prove you wrong in the proper area, but you won't reply there for some reason. Just here and on other Arbitration pages. Tofflenheim (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is the article NPOV or poorly sourced? Can anyone just add tags to the article at random without offering justification? I asked you to justify the tag and you were unable to justify it as NPOV beyond “I don’t like it!” The claim that it will remove 14 million Americans health insurance is not “partisan” or my “opinion” or “NPOV”. It comes from the congressional budget office. The page is “owned” by a number of right wing editors who think they own the article and that anything not taken from congressional republican press release is NPOV. I challenge any uninvolved editor to review the page and assess the spurious claim that the page has any left bias or is inadequately sourced. Interestingly I was also accused of using too many sources; my opponents accuse me of both using too many sources and too few; they object to material in the lead for not being present in the article, and being duplicative of material in the main article, etc. These arguments are meritless and lack basis in reality. Please review my contributions to said article: you will see I am one of the only editors there scrupulously sourcing their claims and not uncritically adopting the perspective of the bill’s writers. Cheers. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Final Bringer of Truth, just today you restored speculation that is tagged "source needed" but wrote in your edit summary Restore factual and well sourced information from reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not speculation. It was sourced information. You know very well there were multiple references appended to that sentence. I’m shocked at this open dishonesty. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is your diff if I added material that did not have multiple references? Since you don’t have one, retract your slanderous claim The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The addition is right here. I don't see any references in it, are they somewhere else in the article?
    The narrow passage led to internal backlash and division in the Democratic Party, which lost the vote due to three elderly Democratic representatives having died in the first five months of 2025. If any had voted the party line, the tie vote would have sent the bill back to committee.[citation needed] MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I see what happened. Someone removed the sources, tagged it with citation needed, and then removed it because of no citation. When I wrote the sentence, there were sources. This is very shady. I would never add a line without multiple sources. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1292200178
    See here. The sentence had multiple reliable notable sources. Subsequently, an editor deleted the sources, then tagged it as uncited, then deleted it for being unsourced. Do you not all find this kind of underhanded editing outrageous? It is absurd to delete references and then claim that the underlying material should be deleted as unsourced. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was actually (also) moved to *Voting by Democratic Representatives*. Similar text, with references is there on the current version of the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you also bring up a good point that material in the lede that is cited elsewhere in the article does not require citations in the lead anyway, showing even more clearly that the removal of this content was done in bad faith. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you bringing the vandalistic removal of sources to my attention. I have reverted the vandal. The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And now their user page talks about wanting to kill wiki-lawyers. I don't like commenting at ANI, but I think it is time for an indef. This is completely unacceptable at a level well above their already-problematic comments. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that I have started an AE thread regarding the registered user's behavior in this topic area. I haven't been keeping up with this thread, I only noticed it when I was going through their contributions to gather evidence for the AE thread. But if people think there are other editors (whether IP or registered) connected to this, please comment there as well. And if one of the threads (this one or the AE thread) are closed, perhaps the other one can be closed too. Just noting this here so everyone is aware. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After having read through this, I would especially request anyone with evidence that the IP(s) may be the same editor provide such at the AE thread, so that all of them can be topic banned (or blocked) as admins decide are appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You just revealed you didn’t read the thread in your statement announcing you had read the thread . Irony! The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should focus on improving articles rather than pursuing vendettas and wasting administrator and arbitrator time ? You do understand arbitration is not the relevant venue to raise complaints about tone right? The Final Bringer of Truth (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Peoplic WP:CLOP spree

    [edit]

    Peoplic (talk · contribs) has already been warned about their close paraphrasing,[69] and they're presently doubling down and spreading it across many articles, despite already having made a lot for us to clean up.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76] I had a pre-existing dispute about their inappropriate use of sources, and this report isn't about that—but when they do hew to what reliable sources say, they do so far too closely. Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    All of my paraphrasing and modifications to the text have been thorough, and I have made a concerted effort to contribute to Wikipedia. I have used reliable and modern sources, replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. Nevertheless, you are relentlessly undoing my work. The goal is to expand and improve Wikipedia.Peoplic (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plagiarism does not improve Wikipedia, it adds copyright-infringing material other editors have to spend a lot of time cleaning up. I'm not ruining your work, because this isn't your work. If you had bothered reading the linked page at any point, you would see examples of plagiarism via close paraphrasing clearly directly akin to what you are adding to these articles. Remsense ‥ 论 08:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I invited you to discuss the topics page by page here, but you avoided the conversation and instead mass-reverted my contributions without proper engagement.Peoplic (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is a separate issue of yours that you were given a final warning about before I even noticed your edits for the first time. There's no discussion to have here: I pointed your egregious plagiarism out again, and you went and tried to put it all back again. You need to be prevented from further damaging the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 08:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your revert here Talk:Fotuhat-e shahi proves that you are acting indiscriminately and have no regard for the contributions of others. Peoplic (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have basically two disputes with you, but you're trying to conflate them in order to deflect from your having done the one that no one familiar with site policies would ever doubt, and one that entails legal liability. Remsense ‥ 论 08:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fotuhat-e_shahi&diff=1289876381&oldid=1289714853 it Peoplic (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not rehash the other issue here. This is about your plagiarism. Remsense ‥ 论 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation for learning to avoid close paraphrasing is WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. Replacing words and changing style is not sufficient. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used reliable and modern sources, replacing words and altering the writing style as much as possible. This is the problem. You need to write content in your own words, not by copying a source and then replacing words. I just randomly checked a single one of the diffs provided by Remsense (this one) and your text is way too close to that of the cited source. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I advise Peoplic to read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios and come back when they understand the points made in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And maybe also WP:VANDNOT, their edit summaries are all "Vandalism revert" REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to say that that is hardly a "plain and simple guide". Wanting people to read rambles like "There's nothing wrong with selling GPL software. I could start burning DVDs with Audacity and GIMP and start flogging them for £20 each down the local market - computer savvy people would be unimpressed I was making money off somebody else's work, but provided anyone could get the original source code (which they can), it's not illegal." as part of a "plain and simple" explanation of what copyvio or close paraphrasing are and how Wikipedia deals with them is not helpful. Better to send editors to our actual policies and guidelines than to this page. Never mind that you seem to imply that it is only a copyright violation because Wikipedia uses a GFDL license, and putting the same text on a website with a different licence wouldn't be a copyright violation. That's just wrong. Fram (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's something to be said in the abstract about having a variety of different materials that may appeal or work best for those of different personalities or what have you. If there are other CLOP explainers in projectspace then the more the merrier? Remsense ‥ 论 10:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The focus on GFDL specifically is weird because single-licensed GFDL text is not allowed to be pasted into the wiki (per WP:COMPLIC, which isn't linked in there despite the talk of compatible licenses). Also needs an update to say CC 4.0 instead of 3.0. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I unfortunately have to unarchive this, as Peoplic hasn't taken heed of what multiple editors here have tried to tell them regarding their obvious close paraphrasing, as they've now reverted me again to restore their plagiarism to articles without meaningful changes – at most swapping out a few more synonyms or shuffling some sentences around – essentially the same shallow attempts to hide what they're doing as before.[77][78][79][80] Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I no longer intend to continue the discussion. Although my reasons were clear, they were not accepted. My goal was to improve and advance Wikipedia, but unfortunately, my efforts ended in failure. You are free to make any changes you wish to my edits — I have no opinion and will not revert them. Thank you for your participation." Peoplic (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you continue to add plagiarism to Wikipedia, you're going to be blocked from editing. Multiple editors (including admins) have provided explanations as to why your additions are clear plagiarism, because we'd much prefer if that block doesn't happen, but we have no choice if you refuse to acknowledge anything anyone else says. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer intend to make the kind of edits I have done so far that you call plagiarism.Peoplic (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you still think that what you're doing isn't plagiarism, but only what others "call plagiarism", then a WP:CIR block is needed, since you lack the skills to not plagiarize in the future. EEng 03:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Peoplic, you need to respond here in a way that shows you understand what plagiarism is -- not just what others "call plagiarism". EEng 15:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Peoplic has apparently returned to editing mainspace, seemingly ignoring this ping/ANI thread, Support a WP:CIR block Psychastes (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support WP:CIR block 2600:387:15:915:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple unsuccessful account login attempts today

    [edit]

    Anyone else receive multiple warnings about someone trying to log in to their accounts but being unable to in the last hour or so? I do have 2FA so they aren't getting in, and changed my own password just to be cautious, but receiving this twice in one day is certainly a bit concerning, even as a perennial issue, and I do wish I'd know who was doing it for clarity to see who it possibly could be. Nathannah • 📮 19:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not me, but I have been unexpectedly logged out a few times in the last few days or so. » Gommeh (he/him) 19:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have that issue right now, but I have received it countless times in the past however. On at least two occassions there had apparently been 27 unsuccessful login attempts into my account, and my email would also literally get bombed full of those login attempt notifications. Though for me it may have started after I dealt with a specific LTA (who I won't name) on Wikipedia. But after a week or so, it seemed to have died off. This all happened last year, from what I remember.
    Since you have 2FA enabled, I honestly wouldn't worry a single bit. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your email was literally bombed? Don't people know it's illegal to send a bomb through the mails? EEng 03:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Two users making nothing but unsourced changes and chronic talk page avoidance

    [edit]

    I’ve come across these editors while attempting to clean up the previously chronic lack of sourcing on airline pages, especially fleet lists. I’ll separate them out as I have no reason to believe they’re in any way related to one another, but it doesn’t make sense to have two ANI threads for the same issue.

    Just commenting to keep the thread from being archived Danners430 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible for someone to take a look at this? Danners430 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    EuroMalikFan23

    [edit]

    EuroMalikFan23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a long history of unsourced additions, with a fair few useful ones too. I was made aware of them through their additions to Ryanair - [81], [82], [83]. Other examples - [84], [85], [86], [87]… that’s all since April. They’ve had two final warnings on their talk page which went ignored, and I even took them to WP:AIV, but was informed that wasn’t the correct venue.

    Kolyan.Mescher

    [edit]

    Kolyan.Mescher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another chronic case of not using sources. In the multiple years they’ve had an account, they’ve made precisely one talk page edit. Edits from just this month… [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93] and [94]. They’ve now reached their third final warning on their talk page, again, ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    For info, this user is continuing to make unsourced edits while still completely ignoring this discussion and their talk page. Danners430 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first has never edited a talk or user talk page, the second has a single user-talk edit from 2020, and both are continuing to make unsourced changes despite multiple warnings and talk pages as long as a CVS Pharmacy recipt. Both have been pblocked from articlespace until communication, and referencing, improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MinorProphet

    [edit]
    Blocked 72h by voorts, extended to indef by Tamzin. Unblock discussion taking place on user's talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think MinorProphet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could do with a break after this. Even if he is the son of a hugely successful lawyer and "no-one has ever thrown WikiRules at me and survived". DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 72 hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Hopefully they are just having a bad day. DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    72 hours seems, exceptionally lenient for saying you've been convicted of violent crimes before, and warning an editor they aren't safe from you.
    I can never travel to the USA because of my criminal record, which involves knife crime, bladed articles etc. That may be a good thing. I reckon you don't even live in this country (ie The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because of your wildly inaccurate view of the justiciary and how it works in reality. I strongly suggest you fuck off and die. Yeah, complain, bitch. Whatever you might think, this is not, repeat NOT a "safe website". There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone.
    We should believe him, and improve the safety stance of the site through an indefinite block. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that 72 hours is exceptionally lenient; this isn't just run-of-the-mill incivility due to frustration. -- Ponyobons mots 17:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy for anyone to extend the block, up to and including indef. I blocked for 72 hours to prevent ongoing disruption. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that last time I indef'd an experienced editor for making threats, I was immediately reversed over my objection; perhaps that unconsciously resulted in me limiting the block length (I just thought of that incident now). I hope that other admins care more about the safety of the community than defending a "net positive". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand - and it should have been an indef - but hopefully this will give them time to cool down and understand what exactly they did wrong. I'm not making this an indef in the spirit of WP:NOTPUNITIVE. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking an editor for violent threats isn't punitive, it's preventing real problems. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure - but an indef - at this point - where the user is already blocked and not disrupting the wiki is punitive. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make any sense. Replacing a block that expires with one that requires the editor to communicate isn't punishment. Punishment would be accepting his apology, believing it won't happen again, and blocking him for 72 hours because he broke a rule. This is preventing an editor who is telling other editors they aren't safe, because of him, from continuing to disrupt Wikipedia. Do you have any reason to believe the threats are over and the editor understands the problem? 12.75.41.115 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have reason to believe that the threats are completely real and the editor has not understood the problem? If you believe so, you should email T&S at WMF. I don't encourage that but it's an avenue that anyone can take. My reading of WP:NOTPUNITIVE disallows me from placing an indef. Other admins are free to do as they desire, it's an open community after all. This will be my last reply on this matter, as there is nothing else for me to do here. qedk (t 愛 c) 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I don't think upping the block would be punitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not an admin) (Edit conflict) I'm an infrequent visitor to the admin noticeboards.
    It looks to me that MinorProphet drops in (out of the blue) a comment about their criminal record involving knife crime (what has that got to do with the edit), the the son of a hugely successful lawyer and "no-one has ever thrown WikiRules at me and survived" , the ACAB edit summary, fuck off and die, and There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone to me indicates an inability, or lack of will, to work on a collaborative project. Their excuse of being drunk is just that, a poor excuse.
    I do understand voorts reluctance to go further than a temporary block. We do however, block editors for less. I realise this editor is an established editor and that that is taken into consideration. I would also expect the safety of other editors to be taken into account as well which would suggest a longer block wouldn't be unusual for this type of behaviour. Knitsey (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the second time this week we have had longtime Wikipedia editors write out-of-character, aggressive comments and then mention they have been drinking. I think, if it doesn't already exist, we should have a Wikipedia essay with the title, "Wikipedia:Don't Edit While Intoxicated" (and that goes for all intoxicants, legal and illegal).
    It's tragic that an editor can toss away 16 years of solid editing experience with one drunken rant. I'm not condoning these comments, they are vile, just trying to put them in context with the rest of this editor's history. I almost want to ask if this account is compromised because when I look at this User talk page, I don't see anything else like it and the editor was posting a remark to a message from months ago. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: There's WP:DRUNK. You can also hijack WP:EUTI to make it serious. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their previous comments in early April, themselves following an article edit in late March adding "lazy fuk" in a hidden comment, I am sad to say that it might not be a one-time thing.
    Regarding that essay, we have it: Wikipedia:Editing under the influence it is! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see we already have Wikipedia:Editing under the influence but it's tagged as a "humorous essay" when I think it's actually deadly serious. Thank you for the links. I imagine that over the 24 years of the project, we have blocked many once solid editors who vandalized or botched up when they edited while drinking or wasted and now they are too embarrassed to appeal their blocks.
    I see looking into their User talk page history and seeing this edit and this one, it wasn't one drunken rant but probably one of a series focused on this one User talk page message that seemed to set them off. Still, it seems out-of-character for them. I see a message there from Duncan to them so maybe he has some familiarity with the editor and their competency. But I don't think you can edit here for 16 years though without getting some things right. I'll be interested in hearing their response to this block when they sober up. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know MinorProphet from the RefDesks, and I've helped fix a reference error or two in articles they have written. The comments today seemed extraordinarily out of character. I think it's best just to leave things as they are and see what happens when they come back. With that said, I'm sure there are some here who will go out of their way to stir it up again given half a chance, by demanding apologies and retractions and self-criticism sessions. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is for everyone. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I have no doubt that those I meant would be certain they were acting for the best. It it possible to have the best of motives and a terrible sense of proportion. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add to what DuncanHill said. MinorProphet helped me on the RefDesk with questions about science fiction literature in the past, and they were extremely helpful and encouraging. Their recent comments sound unusual, and could be easily explained by some kind of drunken bravado or cultural machismo, or perhaps one of any number of explanations. They have been a net positive here in the past. Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. With all due respect to Voorts, threats of violence, or implied threats of violence, merit no lesser response than an immediate and indefinite block. (I can never travel to the USA because of my criminal record, which involves knife crime, bladed articles etc. That may be a good thing ... I strongly suggest you fuck off and die. Yeah, complain, bitch. Whatever you might think, this is not, repeat NOT a 'safe website'. There's cunts like me around, and I'm not alone.) Yes a user's positive contributions need to be taken into account when sanctioning, but the safety of all editors needs to be our paramount concern. Indefinite is not infinite, and if MinorProphet can give a satisfactory explanation for this aberrant comment, in such a way as to resolve the legitimate fears of physical violence that editors would at present feel when interacting with them, then I would not object to an unblock. But you do not get one free threat of violence per 10,000 edits. I have extended the block to indefinite. If those who've defended the leniency of the original block object to this, I am happy to defend the indef at AN, XRV, RECALL, wherever. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: Unnecessary, as there was no immediate threat to anyone or anything, and unkind. You are exactly the sort of person who I mentioned, with the best of motives and lousy judgement. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An unrescinded threat of violence—or at least the strong implication thereof—is absolutely an immediate threat, both to the editor targeted and to the wellbeing of the project. No editor should have to worry that someone could brag about their weapons convictions, say "fuck off and die", and say that they should feel unsafe, and never have to address what they said. MP appears to understand this, and has made an unblock request that is absolutely a step in the right direction, and is an illustration of why it's important to block indefinitely in cases like this: A threat hangs in the air, and with only a warning or tempblock the air is often never cleared. What MP has said so far has gone a long way toward addressing that, although I'd still like to hear more from them about how we can be sure this won't happen again, and have told them as much. If their response to that is as thoughtful and reasonable as their initial apology, I won't have any problem unblocking or commuting to a tempblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the right decision. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm fine with an indef. Not indeffing here shouldn't be taken as me not supporting one. As I said above, I think it was just me subconsciously internalizing the bullshit that happened last time I indeffed an experienced editor who made what I and others perceived to be a threat. To reiterate what I said I hope that other admins care more about the safety of the community than defending a "net positive". voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Voorts. I shouldn't have made it sound like I thought this was deliberate leniency on your part. I understand the position you were in. I have more thoughts about the dilemma you describe, but that's off-topic so I'll put them in an email or something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I live in the UK, like MinorProphet, and, as anyone who knows me will tell you, I enjoy a drink (or eight). However when I have been drinking I tend to fall asleep rather than getting aggressive. Tamzin seemed to take the right approach here. I think this matter can be settled at User talk:MinorProphet without any more input from here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nyam Nyam Tiger's incredibly disruptive WP:BURDEN-fundamentalism

    [edit]
    User blocked indefinitely from article space and extended confirmed permissions removed. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk · contribs) abuses the wording of site guidelines and removes all material tagged with {{cn}} in a completely arbitrary and destructive manner. This comprises the majority of their contribution history, and amounts to meatbotting on their part. They have started socking in the range 2603:8000:E800:5F4E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to avoid scrutiny about it, where they already received a block by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I have already warned them about the sockpuppetry/editing logged out, but it has now continued.[95]

    They seem to believe "citation needed" means "dubious", and as I made very clear to them on my user page, they are not entitled to unilaterally decide unsourced material isn't allowed on Wikipedia and go on sprees removing it without expressing any discretion whatsoever about the citeability of individual cases. The only case-by-case specifics they have ever acknowledged in their reasoning is the age of the citation tag, which is totally meaningless and insufficient by itself. (If it were sufficient reasoning, we would let actual bots do this nonsense instead.) They've even knowingly removed sourced material because the section still had an {{unsourced section}} tag.[96] They plainly do not understand what the term "original research" means.[97] It's a severe competence issue at a minimum. Remsense ‥ 论 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a great time to remind editors of the following provisions of WP:V (main text plus Note [e]):
      When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable ... When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material ... it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.
    This can't be overstressed: the test for removal is a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified -- not just "I'm removing it because I can". (BLP exceptions apply, your mileage may vary.) EEng 23:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng thank you! Jahaza (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense:, While - as EEng points out - the lack of explanation is a problem, the removals are not. Any uncited information in Wikipedia may be removed at any time by any editor, regardless of whether or not (a) it's tagged with {{cn}} or (b) the age of that cn tag. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the lack of explanation in this case clearly reflects a lack of valid reasoning. Again, it's incredibly disruptive, bot-like behavior that's incapable of actually improving the encyclopedia. As stated, your permission requires toleration of people enforcing hard rules that do not exist across a large number of articles. Remsense ‥ 论 23:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP:V points out, it's not only that such material "may" be removed, it's also the case that "Whether ... material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Furthermore, WP:PRESERVE is also policy. On Popcorn, for example, material was removed by @Nyam Nyam Tiger that was covered quite explicitly by sources already listed in the article. Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with the Bushranger on this one. Unexplained mass deletion is a problem because it's unexplained and overly rapid, not because things were deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that's what the complaint is: these edits are unexplained and overly rapid. "I'm removing it because it has a {cn}" isn't an explanation. I might also add, to what I said above, that what V requires is that content be verifiable, not verified. EEng 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet unverified content, especially content that has a CN tag attached and is therefore material that needs an inline citation but does not have one, may be removed. 'I'm removing it because it has a cn' may not be a very good explanation, but the removal of content that was uncited and tagged with a CN is entirely within policy: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed. Should it have been cited instead of removed? Probably. Was there a violation in doing so? No. Was there an ANI-worthy violation in doing so? Absolutely not. That said, it seems that's not the only concern, given the mention of removing sourced material because the section had an unsourced tag that should have been removed instead, which is a problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is their chronic pattern of unjustified, dogmatic behavior. They are not merely bad at explaining their edits, as far as I can tell they are accurately explaining their motivations. They are just bad motivations that are incompatible with site policy. "Uncited" is the actual reason they have expressed repeatedly and at some length. This post would not be made in response to a few edits to a few articles made over a brief period. Again, you are in effect saying we must allow users to enforce a personally-felt rule that uncited material is not allowed at all on Wikipedia. That's absurd. Remsense ‥ 论 01:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger, have you had a look at their contributions? I believe these are, aside from talk page discussions, the only edits they have ever made that are not a straightforward removal of content: [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. In their entire edit history, they appear to have added two sentences to the encyclopedia. We don't need to be getting into a philosophical discussion about when to remove uncited content here. This is pretty plainly not productive editing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the problem with many gnomes: they have no experience in the adult world of actual content editing, and therefore no concept of how a policy like V operates in practice. Bumbling around the project they happen upon a hammer, and after that the world is nothing up a collection of nails for them. EEng 02:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, laid out like that, that does point to a problem, yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a rhetorical question, but I do really want to file better reports here: what about this characterization made it click that was lacking in mine? I tried to emphasize at the top that this behavior was the majority of their editing history. Remsense ‥ 论 09:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You lack the magic touch, that's all. EEng 01:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense, I'm not sure anyone can really answer that question helpfully, since, out of all the topics that tend to nerdsnipe Wikipedians into philosophical debates, this is probably the worst. That we as a group easily lose the tree for sight of the forest is not a thing a tweak to an ANI report is likely to ever be able to solve. -- asilvering (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to believe "citation needed" means "dubious" turned out to be something of a red herring. After all, "citation needed" has spread beyond Wikipedia as a way of expressing doubt and our own {{Citation needed/doc}} says used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation (my emphasis). It's great if people use more precise tags sometimes, but best not assume such tagging doesn't express doubt - and without that assumption, your report might have been effective a little sooner. NebY (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to how I do things, I consider myself a deletionist. In this case, I remove content of questionable authenticity. The longer a content wears a cn, the more its verifiability comes into question. If I remove something, people can add it back, but they must include a reliable source. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you look for citation(s) yourself, for example in this pair of edits where you removed a tagged account of a legend and a mention of price which had not been tagged? NebY (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As to whether I should find a source myself, or have someone else do it, I think that is optional. Deletionists mainly focus on deleting. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @NebY and @Asilvering. Remsense ‥ 论 22:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I am no gnome, and have some experience with content creation. I know the frustration content creators have with unsourced material. I find it easier to write from scratch that to search for references for unsourced material. All unsourced material must be regarded as dubious and treated with caution even if you know it to be true. If you don't know where it came from, then it might well be a copyvio. For that reason, you have to rewrite it when you add a source. I have had to deal with a lot of material that looks convincing but when examined closely turns out to be incorrect. Caution is also required when looking things up online: citogenesis is a real danger. WP:PRESERVE: Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. I personally take a dim view of gnome drive-by taggers. I can and will excise unsourced text, which is not acceptable at DYK, OTD or GA, and expect admins to block anyone attempting to restore unsourced material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course you do that -- so do I, and so does every responsible, experienced editor -- but with judgment and discretion, taking account of the overall state of the article and the nature of the assertions involved. You don't just blindly delete willy-nilly like a robot. EEng 23:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hawkeye7, please see my comment here: [106]. We're not talking about a general philosophical exercise. We're talking about a single disruptive editor. -- asilvering (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Smiley No problem! I have no issue with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletionists mainly focus on deleting has to be one of the most pathetic rationalizations I've ever seen at ANI. Deletionist is term of aprobrium leveled by so-called inclusionists; it is not a badge of honor. In any event you're not a deletionist, you're a wrecking ball. If what you're doing gives you a sense of accomplishment at improving Wikipedia, we're here to tell you that that's not the case: your edits are actively destructive. Find something constructive to do or the calls for you to be blocked will begin. EEng 16:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeaaaaaaah, being a self-admitted "deletionist" is...oof, that is not a good look. At all. @Nyam Nyam Tiger:, I'd strongly suggest you take a step back from your deletionism and read up on a variety of Wikipedia policies regarding verification, notability, and citations. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, Nyam Nyam Tiger teaming up with other deletionists, would look more like consensus. It is arguably only the behavior isolated to a solo effort, which makes it stand out more or is more readily contested. Nyam Nyam Tiger within a team, could overwhelm like fait accompli. Where the deletionist team's numerous and various actions, especially if done quickly, would make resistance to their effort appear futile or a forgone conclusion. Wukuendo (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that by removing unsourced content, editors would be more committed to verifiability. That way, readers can be certain that what they're reading is genuine. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your belief does not follow from reality. We have plenty of "sourced" content that is not actually verifiable - because the citations are incorrect, because the editor made a mistake or because they intentionally twisted them. What improves the veracity of Wikipedia is a careful adherence to verification. You are not verifying, nor are you creating verified content, so your edits are not helpful in this regard. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so you're on a one-man crusade to teach other editors -- editors with experience and judgment -- editors who do actually useful stuff -- that they need to be more "committed to verifiability". What arrogance. It's one thing that you somehow developed these wrongheaded ideas in the isolation of your complete lack of interaction with other editors or constructive work on articles, but it's quite another for you to continue arguing your high-handed position here, where everyone is telling you that you're way off base.
    Note well: Assuming you don't get blocked as a result of this thread (and they way you're going, that's a distinct possibility), if you ever try to teach me to be more "committed to verifiability" via any article on my watchlist, I'll see to it that you're blocked so fast, it will make your head spin. You have been warned. EEng 18:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyam Nyam Tiger:, as I mentioned above, you may, technically, by the letter of policy, be right in making these edits. But being right isn't enough. The way you're going about these edits is disruptive, and the reasoning doesn't fit policy at all, and could indeed be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. So consider this a warning: the community does not trust you to remove unsourced content from articles. Stop doing so, or you will be sanctioned. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me ask you something, Nyam Nyam Tiger. Do you honestly think that this text constitutes dubious material requiring removal [107]?
      A coffee percolator is a type of pot used to brew coffee by continually cycling the boiling water through the grounds using gravity until the required coffee strength is reached. There are stove-top percolators and standalone units which contain a built-in heating element. Percolators were popular until the 1970s, when they were widely replaced with other techniques. By the mid-1970s, many companies ceased production of percolators.
    I could maybe see an argument for removing the last two sentences (in the same way, I suppose, you might remove an unsourced statement that as autos became common, horses fell out of use), but the rest? Are you kidding? How about this [108]?
    When the popcorn has finished popping, sometimes unpopped kernels remain. Known in the popcorn industry as "old maids", these kernels fail to pop because they do not have enough moisture to create enough steam for an explosion. Re-hydrating prior to popping usually results in eliminating the unpopped kernels.
    Yes, it's a good thing you're on the alert for dodgy stuff like that. EEng 21:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly have any opinions on both statements. But whoever added the cn tags probably thinks they're dubious. One thing to consider is that after they are tagged, they have not been dealt with in years. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyam Nyam Tiger, editors are expected to exercise their judgement when editing. If you have no opinion on the merits, simply don't make the edit. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyam Nyam Tiger, you are assuming that the person who placed the tag knew what they were doing and made a sensible decision. That's not a reliable assumption. Schazjmd (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nyam Nyam Tiger, all we know is that the person who added the tags thought they ought to be provided with citations - after all, the statements are reasonable and if you'd examined them you'd have found that they were verifiable. They only needed citations. But you like deleting, so you deleted good content. NebY (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick google search for Percolators were popular until the 1970s, and easily found this source:
    • Sheumaker, Helen (November 3, 2017). Artifacts from Modern America. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-4408-4683-0.
    So why not do a quick search first and help improve the encyclopedia with content that is reliably sourced and verifiable. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V is clear that there are some situations that allow uncited-but-uncontroversial text to remain, and deliberately vague about what constitutes a legitimate "challenge"; this is necessary because whether to remove or leave tagged with {{cn}} is a contextual thing dependent on a lot of factors, and not something that is well-handled by an ironclad rule (outside of a few cases like WP:BLP where more ironclad rules are necessary.) Going through and mass-removing cn-tagged things in a clearly indiscriminate manner the way you've been doing breaks that and is effectively an attempt to change the way we handle such material by WP:FAIT in a way that isn't really compatible with collaborative editing. --Aquillion (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban or block

    [edit]

    I think we've had enough WP:IDHT for one day. I'll start by proposing the following. But please, let's work out the details of it before people start supporting/opposing. I'm fine with people editing this proposal in place -- just make mention below that you changed something.

    NNT is indefinitely banned from removing unsourced material from articles. This ban may be appealed after one year, during which time it is expected that they will have engaged significant article editing of other kinds.

    EEng 22:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn in favor of a straight block -- see below. EEng[reply]

    I think this would be basically impossible to adhere to for any genuinely productive editor, so I don't think it's a good idea here either. If they choose to go back to their old habits, I'll simply indef them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. I was imagining expanding to "unsourced and insufficiently sourced", to encompass {{more citations needed}}, {{Medical citations needed}} and the like, in case of argument - but you're clearer. NebY (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NebY, not sure whether you're talking to me or to Asilvering. But I'm happy with with Asilvering's sword-of-Damoclese approach as well. But first we'd have to hear from NNT that he understands why his editing to date has been inappropriate. So far he's been unable to do that, and if no progress is made on that front, I think he needs to be blocked until he can articulate how he's going to mend his ways. EEng 23:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I was responding to asilvering, liking their approach better than my thoughts about fine-tuning your draft. But yes, this is also a textbook example of a preventative block being appropriate, pending - or only to be averted by - clear understanding and acceptable assurances. NebY (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Well, at this point all we can do is wait to hear from NNT. He knows this thread is ongoing. I'd say 24 hours is more than generous. EEng 00:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a general block. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyam Nyam Tiger: I fully agree with everything everybody except yourself has said here. But you don't have to. You just have to show you understand. I would strongly recommend that you do what I did on the one occasion I was brought here, state that you disagree with the interpretation of policy that users critical of you have outlined, but promise you will no longer make the kind of edit that is causing problems.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize another point needs to be highlighted: NNT's extensive use of logged-out editing to avoid scrutiny [109], beginning immediately after he was first warned to stop and continuing practically until the moment this ANI thread was opened [110]. So they've long known this activity is inappropriate, but kept doing it anyway. EEng 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that's a ban, surely? Boynamedsue (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't call me Shirley. [111] EEng 14:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this you?--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, Sue. EEng 17:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, editing while logged-out to avoid scrutiny is a blockable offense. And doing so when they knew their disruptive behavior was an issue, shows they have no intent on stopping their disruptive behavior. Support indef. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, despite my reputation as heartless and unforgiving, my better angels are telling me there's a sliver of a chance that NNT can yet be guided onto a better path -- he's gotten sucked into this deletion monomania, but maybe his eyes can be opened. One approach would be an immediate indefinite block from article space, with the provision that he can be unblocked via the usual unblock request process, assuming he can show he understands the error of his ways. Or maybe he can convince us here, while this thread is still open, that he should be unblocked.
    So that's my proposal: an immediate indef from article space. EEng 14:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m good with this too ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Logging out in an attempt to avoid detection when one's edits are under scrutiny is all but an admission of intentional disruption. Support indef. --Sable232 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I really want to keep pushing the idea of an indef from article space. That way he has an path by which he can start contributing usefully (e.g. posting sources he's found for unsourced statements) with zero risk he'll be able to resume his old activities. The IP range should also be fully blocked for, say, a year. EEng 15:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree to that. Is it really likely to happen though? The user clearly principally derives pleasure from removal of text. Also, would anyone notice the addition of sources?Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not likely, I agree. But look how clean it is: he's blocked from the space in which his activities were disruptive and, whether we think it's likely or not, left open the paths by which he can redeem himself, and subsequently make an unblock request. Re finding sources: what I'm suggesting is that he find sources for {cn} material, and post them to the talk page of the article involved; some other editor can add the source to the article. Or he can draft a few new articles in Draft: space. If he does stuff like that enough times over a few months, then there'd be good reason to give him a new lease on Wikilife by unblocking him.
    I really feel that partial blocks (from a given article, or all of article space) should be used way, way more at ANI. EEng 17:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks EEng, a pblock is certainly a better idea than an outright indef and I'm a bit ashamed that wasn't my initial suggestion. I still prefer to wait to see if they go back to their old habits first. In the meantime, I've blocked the IP for a month. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if they go back to their old habits first – That would make sense if they came to this thread and articulated an understanding of what they've been doing wrong. Assuming they don't (and I propose we give them another 8 hours to get over their WP:ANIFLU) then some kind of block is in order. I'm a broken record on this: a block for a week just freezes everything, and then we see if he just starts up again, but a mainspace pblock gives him a chance to demonstrate he can contribute usefully, and learn. It'd indef because we'll want to hear him articulate what he's learned. EEng 18:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ [112]. EEng 19:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. Don't sell yourself short like that. Our arguments are free and open-source. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, my support is for an indef p-block or site block. Either one works, but given the user's attitude I wouldn't have high hopes that it would matter in the long run. That said, a p-block is worth a try in situations like this. --Sable232 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options outside of an article-space pblock seem hard to enforce, and an article space pblock seems like a big jump. That said, it is problematic to remove unsourced content without much thought and at a rapid rate, and if that is not taken on board then something preventative will be needed. I would also say this interpretation of cn tags as dubious tags is similarly problematic, as well as forging too strong a link between the presence of a tag and the concept of being unsourced. I have seen articles gutted through the deletion of all cn-tagged text, while leaving untagged but actually dubious text, which leads to a net decrease in quality. CMD (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean by article space pblock seems like a big jump. EEng 17:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just seems high in the potential escalating block staircase. CMD (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They've already been blocked for disruptive editing on the IP. I found this out while going to block the IP myself. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      seems high in the potential escalating block staircase – But everyone else is talking about a full indef, so it seems to me a mainspace indef is mild by comparison. To repeat: a mainspace indef will allow him to demonstrate competence in other ways before requesting an unblock. EEng 18:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Time-limited blocks can work well for aberrations and giving contributors a chance to adjust. Deleting content's been NNT's sole activity (nearly 500 instances, 80 in the last month) and they think it's justified; it's how they define themselves here. I don't see how we can let them loose in encyclopedia mainspace without some credible retraction and assurance. NebY (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A timed block p-block may be a lighter step, I had the "indef from article space" suggestion on my mind. CMD (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be clear on my thinking: an indef from article space, until he can articulate an understanding of what he's done wrong, is the right move. A timed pblock from article space, under which he can just not respond in this thread, wait out the block, and then go back to what he was doing, is clearly an inferior way of (a) avoiding more trouble, and (b) giving him a chance to learn to operate in other areas of the project. EEng 19:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for the wait. I'm getting busy these days. Anyway, I vow that I'll give more consideration when dealing with content lacking citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way? What else do you see yourself doing, other than deleting stuff? And most importantly, please explain why you were editing while logged out when you had been told to stop with the deletions. Personally I believe you should still be blocked from article space until you've demonstrated an ability to contribute to the project in other ways. Why shouldn't we do that? You've caused a lot of editor time to be wasted with your childishness, and we're going to need more than a vague single sentence from you. EEng 22:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As suggested by other users, I'll check the web for sources when it comes to the unverified things. As for editing while logged out, I forgot about that. But that won't happen again. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. You "forgot" about editing while logged out, which you were doing two days ago?
    We've wasted enough time on this and I've heard all I need to. Since NNT doesn't have any plans to do anything but delete stuff, I now call for them to be indefinitely pblocked from article space. They can find sources for stuff lacking sources, and post them to article talk pages, and they can do anything else useful -- outside of article space. When they've demonstrated an ability to do such stuff for three months, they can request to be unblocked. EEng 22:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer. EEng 22:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indef from article space. Based on the comment above from Nyam Nyam Tiger (in which they also admit editing the same way while logged out) I'm heeding discussion consensus to indefinitely block the user from editing in article space. This is an entirely preventative block to prevent undue blanking. They are welcome to edit anywhere else for now. Nyam Nyam Tiger is welcome to continue this discussion if they wish. I hope they make a more serious case than they have done so far. Any edits in any wiki-space by this user while logged out will be treated as an attempt to go around the block. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed that Nyam Nyam Tiger has just clicked over 501 edits, giving them extended confirmed status. Given over 95% of their edits are mere blankings, I'm wondering whether this was just a rather unusual gaming of EC privileges. BusterD (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you remove EC. They can request it back separately at some appropriate time. EEng 23:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
       Done - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, now get Trump to resign. EEng 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's seems to be some misunderstanding. In my previous two posts, I pretty much commented about my removal habits because that is subject of the thread. But frankly, I can do anything besides removal. In fact, I once added a sentence to a restaurant article, and even added a link. I could switch to that type of editing if I have to. Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If you think that your mass deletions were the only subject of this thread, then you haven't taken this matter seriously enough to read this thread. I'm probably the only reason you're not site blocked indefinitely, and so far you've made me sorry to have gone to the trouble. Take my advice above as to things you can do to restore the community's confidence in you, and after at least three months think about making an unblock request (on your talk page). EEng 02:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IR-TheFirstSoldier

    [edit]
    IR=TheFirstSoldier AE-enforcement tbanned, then indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    IR-TheFirstSoldier was canvassed by a sock stalker IP to undo my edit [113]. The sock IP canvassed IR-TheFirstSoldier after failed attempts to undo on their own using a different range, which led to the article being protected.

    After all of that, IR-TheFirstSoldier took upon the canvassing request and reverted me, claiming I didn't give a reason and that my edit was "vandalism". I opened a talk discussion and explained everything to them [114], asking them to not restore extraordinary claims without extraordinary sources and that I clearly gave a rationale. This led to IR-TheFirstSoldier denying the Armenian genocide, three times [115], [116], [117]:

    Armenian genocide also claimed not proven

    Im not obligated to accept everything in the history that specific nation or group of people claim to be fact.

    IF everybody agrees that this genocide happened and it is accepted internationally, then we can start to revealing every genocide in history too as fact if the victim countries want to, and not just claims. But somehow armenians love to brag about everywhere about their genocide like it is only they are the victims.

    It was a bizarre turn of events but here we are. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP user asked my help that someone was deleting sourced texts in this article, i didnt see your explanation while making the edit, which was exactly deleting, and you said its an extraordinary claim with the source itself while its was also claimed genocide by the Armenia against Azarbaijan which what you deleted. Then you accuse me being political and denying Armenian genocide, while you are doing the same claiming. If you explained to me why the sources you say are not trustable and just extraordinary claims instead arguing with me over this and complaining about my edit maybe i would have listened you. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @IR-TheFirstSoldier the existence of the Armenian genocide is universally recognized by the sort of reliable, scholarly sources that Wikipedia uses; the kind of conduct Utogh highlights here is putting you on a fast track towards getting kicked out of the Armenia topic area, if not Wikipedia as a whole. Think very carefully about how you respond to this.
    @KhndzorUtogh I realize this may be slightly frustrating, but a more in depth explanation of why those cited sources are unreliable would be helpful to outside observers. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So Wikipedia is place that everybody have to accept something like Armenian Genocide ? But you cant accept any other genocide as reliable source ? Think about what one sided solution coming up with. What Wikipedia uses mostly is sources provided by both sides. If its not reliable as you say then come talk about it what makes it unreliable with facts, not with threats. Im not in any armenian topic you claiming that i am, just escalating converstaions thats all. Besides this is not any good reason to be kicked out. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What i did its only revert edit and thats what happened. The user KhndzorUtogh escalated the situation in my talk page and we talked it out even we dont agree with each other. I didnt edit anything else in that article, and the genocide acceptance or not its on me as my view, im not editing anything about it like KhndzorUtoght edits other genocides im just talking with him and he comes here to accuse me with it like its a policy. Wikipedia have policy to let users with different views. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would read this discussion then, @IR-TheFirstSoldier. Forget what Utogh is doing; you're missing the point of what I'm saying and misunderstanding the point of Wikipedia; to build an encyclopedia based off of reliable sources. It is not about expressing your view of the world. There is an agreement among real world experts that the Armenian genocide did happen. These academics, scholars, reporters etc. do not give credence to the theory that the genocide did not happen; to say otherwise is to promote WP:FRINGE sources, who Wikipedia does not give much weight to (never mind that editors of an Armenian background will likely find denial to be a hateful view point; you could very much be easily sanctioned under Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive). I'm not trying to personally go after you or whatever; I'm trying to help get you off a bad path you're set on. But if you don't understand what I'm saying, then you're not going to be editing in this topic area for much longer. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and im not doing any editing about it either, i just demanded the user for explanation of the why he thinks the sources are unrelaible, because he was editing with no explanation and im not promoting any unrelaible sources, because im not the one who cited them. Maybe i was wrong doing the revert edit and the arguing about it, but i was right about asking and explanation for it. I cant just trust blindly someone's words. Real world experts could be right or wrong, some accept as a fact, some not, im not obligated to accept everything as a fact, but that doesnt mean im doing hate talk about it while sharing my view on it. Because i didnt neither do any editing about the genocide in the Wikipedia, or went writing hate messages. He asked my view and i just shared it, but coming here to report me for it its not in Wikipedia's policies either. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moneytrees, IR-TheFirstSoldier restored a disputed edit that lacked quality sources. The hyetert 2003 news article based on state sponsored Anadolu Agency is openly denying the genocide (“claims of so-called genocide on Armenian”) and uses a lot of language common in Armenian genocide denying sources like “Armenian gangsters” and a vague mention of “archives” that allegedly support genocide negationism (more context on this phenomena for unfamiliar outside observers). The other source is in Turkish, published by a Turkish organization, and accuses Armenians of being the ones who committed genocide against Turks, another common genocide denial narrative (see Igdir Genocide Memorial and Museum). WP:REDFLAG.
    Just to clarify, I didn't "escalate" anything on their talk page (I merely informed them about general sanctions [118]), I didn’t even revert them once; I went directly to the talk page without mentioning the Armenian genocide when I initiated the discussion. It appears that IR-TheFirstSoldier just couldn't help but deny it when replying to me for the first time [119]. When I asked them to clarify their stance on the genocide, they embraced it and continued to assert their hateful views [120], even after another user chimed in [121]. WP:NOTHERE WP:NONAZI. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with accusation of me being hateful, but in matter of fact i was asking the reason only, but you didnt write it like this as response in my talk page explaining why do you think is its unrelaible then i will take you more seriously. Then you came here reporting me just for one 1 edit and my personnel views that i expressed in our discussion, which is allowed under WP:TALK and WP:NPOV. IR-TheFirstSoldier (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Gcenty not communicating about dozens of unsourced lists

    [edit]
    This appears to have turned into a discussion about what is and is not suitable for a list. That's something that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (NLIST) or Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (LISTVERIFY). Concerns about the editor's editing should be discussed on their talk page first, and if that doesn't work WP:DR is the next step. Going ahead and closing this according to those. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am requesting a partial block of User:Gcenty from mainspace and draftspace until they communicate with us. They are creating a large number of "List of [country name] singers" pages with zero sources. These lists have been draftified by seven different NPPers at this point, yet Gcenty continues to create new unsourced lists, including three today [123][124][125]. They have only edited their User Talk page once, a year ago [126], and have never edited an article Talk page; a pblock may be the only way to get their attention and stop them from creating more unsourced lists. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pings for NPPers who may want to weigh in: @FuzzyMagma@CoconutOctopus@MPGuy2824@QEnigma@JTtheOG@Zzz plant, who draftified these lists; @Dclemens1971, who marked ten as reviewed; @Abo Yemen and @JSFarman, who each marked one as reviewed.
    If the inclusion criteria of the list is "Wikipedia notable" it is possible that sources are not required (hence why some were marked as reviewed), but that doesn't sit right with me. This volume of editing may also require community approval per WP:MASSCREATE. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadspike Tbh, I reluctantly marked it as reviewed since I found nothing related to "don't create a list of notable x", plus the list that I marked as reviewed had singers who all have a Wikipedia article, technically meaning that they are notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am willing to mark the list as unreviewed if the criteria that I've used are wrong 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure if these lists, individually, should or should not be marked as reviewed. I don't think you made a mistake here. I am mainly concerned that so many are created so quickly, with no acknowledgement of the problem that caused half of them to be removed from mainspace. Toadspike [Talk] 08:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perennially debatable area, and arguably these list pages don't add much value beyond the categories that already exist. I wouldn't have bothered to create these kinds of lists but I also don't see the point in deleting them once created since WP:SIRS inevitably cover singers of a particular nationality as a group (see e.g. for Cameroonian singers: [127], [128], [129]). I would suspect for 90+% of them one could find an WP:NLIST pass and that's the basis of my decisions for the lists I marked as reviewed. However, I wouldn't object to any consensus to delete these list pages per WP:CROSSCAT. As for them being unsourced, the requirements of WP:LISTVERIFY are met by the links to the articles themselves. Whether a singer belongs to a particular nationality is generally going to be the kind of uncontentious fact that does not require an inline citation if it's verified in the subject's article. I agree with @Toadspike that @Gcenty should respond to communication, but I also don't see any evidence that Gcenty's talk page received any messages other than automated templates prior to this ANI thread being opened. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that notability is likely not an issue, but I don't see WP:LISTVERIFY giving a carte-blanche exemption from providing sources for BLP claims, which nearly all of these are. It says "statements should be sourced where they appear", which I read as saying statements should be sourced in the list itself. Toadspike [Talk] 13:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLIST also says that - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - so I've always taken that to mean that at least one source must be provided in the list article that discuss this particular group or set, but that every entry on the list doesn't have to be in that source that discusses the group or set. Having said that, if a reasonable objection to their mass creation of these List articles has been raised with the editor, then they should stop creating them and discuss, not sure if all the standard notifications of articles being moved to draftspace counts, but on the other hand, surely they can see the reason for the multiple moves to draftspace is because it has no sources.
    I've worked on several LGBTQ-related list articles that had citation needed tags, for instance, List of LGBTQ rights activists, and I've always provided a source because I feel it is required per our policies and guidelines for List articles, but I've also seen other people that disagree with my interpretation, and that a wikilink to their article is enough. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhere (I think in WP:LISTVERIFY but I don't have time to look it up), there's guidance that uncontroversial statements do not need to be sourced in lists (i.e. "apple" in "list of fruits"). A list including living people is different, but I don't think it's contentious to say that John Doe is a Moldovan singer if the first sentence of his bio says "John Doe is a Moldovan singer," and thus that would constitute verification for purposes of inclusion in such a list. If there was a debate over inclusion, then the topic would be contentious and inline citation would be required. I of course think inline citation is a best practice for verification but not a requirement if it's uncontentious or not one of the four circumstances when it is required.
    Separately, I should elaborate -- it is mildly unfair to bring this editor to ANI without any effort first to explain the concerns. The draftification auto-notices don't explain why there might be a broader problem, and editors with concerns should have posted a note seeking to articulate why so many pages were being draftified and asking for a response before opening a thread here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kentuckyfriedtucker

    [edit]

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

    This user has made an unwarranted accusation of COI against me at Talk:Adam Milstein and I've asked them to remove it on their talk page to no avail.

    81567518W (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The user has appeared to remove the accusation of COI in favor of a claim of bias. 81567518W (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like some action taken here. 81567518W (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone made an overly hasty accusation of COI and then retracted it on request, I'm not seeing what action needs to be taken. Saying that someone is "biased" isn't typically sanctionable unless there's an additional pattern of bad behavior, which I'm not really seeing. Rusalkii (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it appears marginal but the user has continued to allege "drama" (?) on their talk page upon notice of this issue.
    Happy to move on. I just wanted it made clear to this user that it's not ok to make allegations against another user for diligent and reasonable efforts toward consensus. Thanks for your reply! 81567518W (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    2600:1700:7CF0:5600::/64

    [edit]
    Blocked for 31 hrs by The Bushranger (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I suspect that the IP range 2600:1700:7CF0:5600::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is being used for vandalism. They keep making changes to numbers without sources, and I checked two of them and found them to contradict the given sources. 99.155.36.136 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 31 hours. If they resume afterwards, WP:AIV is where this should be reported. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP user 82.47.54.185 pushing idiosyncratic views re the US

    [edit]
    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An IP user, Special:Contributions/82.47.54.185, has made quite a few edits of which a few are all right but also many of which involve an ongoing discontent over nations and nationalities and languages and language varieties, the terms used for them, and often the identification with them of various foodstuffs, based on idiosyncratic ideas of what they should be. In some cases the edits are to harp openly about the fact that some term in use is specifically English. These edits have largely been reverted. A number of communications about this (not formal warnings, but still) on the user's talk page, but there has been no response and the same behavior has continued. Many of the edit summaries have been combative and in some cases vulgar. Examples:

    • 2 March, at Tripe, [130], changed a reference to "Mexican tacos" to "Mesoamerican tacos".
    • 30 March, at Corned beef, [131], changed the infobox name parameter value from "Corned beef" to "Corned beef in the United States" and left the edit summary "murrikunts".
    • 6 May, at Curry, [132], changed the lead from "Curry is a dish with a sauce or gravy seasoned with spices ..." to "Within the English language the term Curry refers to a dish with a sauce or in the USA, a gravy in seasoned [sic] with spices ..."
    • 14 May, at Stuffed peppers, [133], felt the need to add to each mention of "Bell peppers" (which was linked to the article) other names by which other English speakers in the world know them.
    • 28 May, at John Bertrand Johnson, [134], I don't think anything was wrong with the edit, but the edit summary "why is wiki so USA centric on THE world wide web?" seems a free-floating rant unrelated to the edits that were actually made.
    • 31 May, at Equestrianism, [135], changed the lead "Equestrianism ... commonly known as horse riding (Commonwealth English) or horseback riding (American English) ..." to "Equestrianism ... commonly known as horse riding (Commonwealth English) or in the USA simplified English horseback riding (American English) ...".
    • 31 May, at Americans, [136], made several additions harping on how each term is only the English term and how the United States is the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", and left the edit summary "MURRICUNTS".

    A fair number of this user's other edits within the last couple of months have been reverted by a number of other editors for other reasons.

    What's the best next step in dealing with this user? Largoplazo (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Idiosyncratic" is a rather over-polite way to describe this. I've handed out a block for WP:DE, but I doubt that will change their approach, so feel free to ping me if they make another edit like that on their return. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unconstructive grammar simplifications and a refusal to communciate from 74.47.33.84

    [edit]
    IP rangeblocked for 6 months by Daniel Quinlan (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    By @74.47.33.84. Hit the 3 revert limit on this one. User will not leave any edit summaries and refuses to communicate or address reversion reasons (e.g. repeated violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, that many of the grammar simplifications they make are bad (Including unsourced date changes?) [137] [138] [139], or dubiously related see also edits [140] [141] [142] among others). Despite being reverted by multiple editors they refuse to stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the unhelpful IP user described at User:Beyond My Ken/Bad copyediting IP. Blocked the IP range for 6 months based on the activity from that range. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:MyOttawaNumber - allegations of undisclosed paid editing

    [edit]

    MyOttawaNumber (talk · contribs) became very defensive in two separate instances, Special:Diff/1289448910 and Special:Diff/1293216589, when asked about undisclosed paid editing at Radio Africa Group and Gondwana Ecotours, respectively, insisting that there are no financial stakes involved. I also suspect this user of being a meat puppet given that they could not have recreated Gondwana Ecotours without knowing that it has previously been deleted. I asked this user on their talk page about why they recreated Gondwana Ecotours but did not get a proper response. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The drafts aren't substantially similar, so you've no smoking gun here. The new one does look a lot like LLM output though, if anyone wants to have a deeper look to see if that characterizes most of their edits. -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking at this closely, I question whether disclaiming participation in paid editing is evidence of paid editing. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That and any editor can know that a page was previously deleted. Knowing the content of that deleted page isn't accessible, but the fact it has been is. I sense a WP:BOOMERANG here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger, where do you see them saying they know about the content of the previous page? I don't see that in these diffs or on their talk page but could easily have missed it. Given the heavy UPE involvement in these articles previously, obviously we should be realistic here, but I don't think we should be surprised that someone responding to UPE concerns is irritated (that's how I'd describe the tone, more than "defensive"). If someone had accused me of UPE early on, I'd have been miffed too. -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: That was in response to the OP's they could not have recreated Gondwana Ecotours without knowing that it has previously been deleted.. I was noting that they probably didn't know about the content on the previous page, but could easily know there was a previous page - sorry if that was unclear. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OP here. I assume you took a look at Special:Diff/1293216589. What I meant was that they could not have recreated the page without some intention as they have claimed on their talk page knowing that the page has previously been deleted, twice for that matter, by one User:See-N-e-v-e-r-M-i-n-d and one User:Gedbesasa. I am not saying that they were able to see the content of the previous page(s). Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has a track record of UPE so I do hope you know where I am coming from. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the UPE history of that article is obvious. -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User resurfaced (this report is very late)

    [edit]

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

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

    SPI Archive of Fraberj's Socks

    I'm very late in filing this because I've had a lot of life things going on, but the user User:NEWCOLLINS is either a (suspected) sock of the user User:Fraberj, or a very good impersonator. I am aware of socketpuppet investigations, but the account is far too stale to do anything with in that regard. Still, it remains active and not blocked. Given the nature of the case, not to mention that the suspected sock fits the MO of the main account down to a T, and the status of the original account User:Fraberj (which has been banned), here is a request for an admin to review the data present, if not possibly act on it. Original AN/I Ban discussion. It’s been a bit since I've been active here, but please highlight anything I need to provide that I've missed. Daedalus969 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Inspected the account’s two edits against the claimed banned account, both out themselves as the same user which is good enough for me. I’ve indef blocked the new but haven’t officially tagged it as part of the sock farm (don’t feel quit right doing that without a look under the hood as it were), however I did leave the links to the previous ban discussion and the SPI case in question in the block log in case others elect to pursue the matter or in the unlikely event of an appeal. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at the Russo-Crimean Wars page

    [edit]

    The User:Skibidi36 keeps removing content I have added on the page of the Russo-Crimean Wars. I asked the user to use the talk page[1] before removing content/reverting my edits, but he simply reacted to my talk page and within minutes deleted the content I added without having reached any consensus.[2] he basically just shared a source and then a argument from himself that don’t even align with each other. I clearly explained to the user, with my sources, the reason of my edits. But he just removed it either way. [3] His argument of ‘’which was the the annexation of Astrakhan and Kazan’’ is simply not true. That was not even the purpose/goal of the Fire of Moscow (1571) nor at the Battle of Molodi. I would appreciate it if a admin could warn this user so that he first reaches a consensus with other editors at the talk pages before removing content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woxic1589 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Skibidi36 and the OP have been discussing this content issue on the article talk page but have not reached agreement. In such a case don't edit the article, but follow the dispute resolution steps. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, not an "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problem." If it is a dispute, then you need to read WP:ONUS as you're the one trying to introduce disputed content to a stable article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added content to a incomplete article as it ignored the result of the Fire of Moscow (1571). I also again explained everything regarding my edits, with sources, at the talk page of the Russo-Crimean Wars. I see that you also removed my content again despite having explained everything, with sources, at the talk page as the User:Skibidi36 has not reacted to my latest comments yet. Also I would like it if you could explain the ‘’disputed’’ part of the content I added. I clearly mentioned the reason on the talk page with sources and clear arguments. A incomplete article is not really that ‘’stable’’. Woxic1589 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to read WP:ONUS. You boldly added material in good faith. It was disputed in good faith by another editor and then the burden was on you to either convince others who disagreed of your position or form a consensus that the text was an improvement. You participated in an ongoing discussion on the talk page. If disagreements become untenable, that's what WP:DR is there for.
    That was all good. But you also insisted on your version being in the article in the mean time. The article had been stable; I didn't say complete or done because there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Being right (I'm not making any judgment) is insufficient; that's not how Wikipedia works. Again, the burden is on the person adding the disputed material to demonstrate to others that it ought to be included in the article.
    And escalating it here was completely inappropriate. If you want to make a content issue into a conduct issue, I believe it's your conduct that would be found wanting. Continue to discuss your proposed edits, and don't edit war in your preferred version. I can tell you for certain that Wikipedia editors and admins tend to have little stomach for the nationalist edit wars that arise in the "result" section of infoboxes of actual wars. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ‘’ I can tell you for certain that Wikipedia editors and admins tend to have little stomach for the nationalist edit wars that arise in the "result" section of infoboxes of actual wars’’ completely agree with you on that part hence why I reported the user I mentioned above. You might wanna check his first revert of my edits then as well: [[143]]. He’s simply reverting back my edit because he thinks that that is not how it works? What even is that supposed to mean? My edit was a very simple one, basically explaining and summarizing the results of what happened in the years of 1571 and 1572 as the Invasions were two separate raids/battles. Not a very complicated topic to even open a talk page section about it. But the User:Skibidi36 literally reverted both of my edits back without having allowed me to respond to his first comment at the talk page section I had created at the Russo-Crimean Wars page. Thats the reason why I came here. How is that not a form of disruptive editing? He’s also not responding to my replies for now (both here and at the talk page, and yes I don’t expect other editors to respond within a few minutes/hours, obviously), which is gonna slow down this entire process about a small result edit at the infobox that was already explained by me with all sources and facts I shared at the talk page. I just think that it is a bit of a waste of time. But if a third editor could help speed up some things regarding this issue, I would appreciate that. Woxic1589 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not disruptive editing. Editors aren't required to give ample time for discussion before reverting something, only explain their reasoning, which Skibidi36 did. Again, the WP:ONUS is on you to make the case for your changes. You've made your case; Skibid36 and now I were not convinced by it. If your argument convinces other (uncanvassed) editors that your version is better, then it ought to be included as a result of a newly formed consensus. If your argument doesn't, then it shouldn't. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So I can just start reverting back edits of other users by simply saying ‘’that is not how it works’’? And editors can just stop replying at the Talk Pages like Skibidi36 does so that his reverts just stay like that, and slows down the process to reach an consensus? Talk:Russo-Crimean Wars Woxic1589 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is what you think, it explains why you have more edit-warring warnings on your talk page in six weeks than most editors earn in six years. If you want to see your edits be adopted, you should drop the stick, show some patience, and act like this is a collaborative process rather than adversarial. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think that anyone asked you to mention or to take a look at what happened on my talk page in the past, which is also completely irrelevant to the current discussion/topic on this and the other talk page on Russo-Crimean Wars page. Skibidi36 is not responding anymore after more than 24 hours on that talk page after he reverted back 2 of my edits. I replied to him with arguments, sources, examples etc and then waited. If he is not willing to continue with this discussion then he should let it know. I don’t think that I have to wait for a month long or so to restore content back I already explained with sources and arguments on the same talk page over and over again, simply because the editor who removed it is not willing to respond anymore.Woxic1589 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. A user has disputed this. Follow WP:DR rather than reinstate your edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have writing multiple walls of text here with arguments, sources and examples at the Talk:Russo-Crimean Wars, in response to the content that was removed by User:Skibidi36. But even that doesn’t seem to help as neither he nor anyone else is responding to that talk section. I opened a RfC and the only user who responded there was User:CoffeeCrumbs, who earlier removed the content I added, for a third time on the Russo-Crimean Wars page. I don’t know what else I can do about this when both of them just keep removing it, and then one of them just doesn’t respond anymore at the talk page itself. Like do I need to make a request for Arbitration or something like that?Woxic1589 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DR. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ [1]
    2. ^ [2]
    3. ^ [3]

    User:Nuttyprofessor2016

    [edit]

    Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Initially wasn't sure whether to take this here or over to WP:COIN, but I decided on here. Anyway, this is a long one.

    Nuttyprofessor2016 has, for a while by the looks of things, been making undisclosed COI edits to a few articles. The first of these was to Draft:Vaibhav Maloo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a since deleted draft (note the mainspace page Vaibhav Maloo has been salted due to being repeatedly recreated and A7'd). Nutty was warned in 2019 for COI edits to the draft, however in March 2020 (using an IP) subsequently declined having any connection to Maloo. In 2022, the mainspace page Vinay Maloo was deleted and salted (see AfD), with many related titles also being salted due to large amounts of UPE and socking taking place. Nutty was also warned by the closer of that discussion for making these comments.

    We now come 'round to 2024, where Nutty created a new version of the Vinay Maloo article in draftspace. It was subsequently declined three times in April 2024, January 2025 and today (by me). I'm not a sysop so I can't view the contents of the deleted mainspace article, but I'm not convinced it's too dissimilar to the deleted article. In February this year (and what made me decide to place this here and not at COIN), Nutty added this to the draft talk page, and left an identical comment on the Vinay AfD, managing to sprinkle in a legal threat and attack in one go, stating that he was Vaibhav, Vinay's son, completely contrary to what he said back in 2020, before then proceeding to blank both the draft talk page and his own UTP. I'm not going to delve into whether Nutty has engaged in any sockpuppetry, but given the history surrounding these articles (which goes back over a decade), someone can connect the dots in one way or another. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It been more than 3 months since Nuttyprofessor2016 edited on this project and even after that spurt of editing in February, they really hadn't been editing the project regularly since 2022-2023. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems so why did you file this complaint today, June 1st, about this editor? What about this situation needs immediate attention? Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maxwhollymoralground's undue removal of sourced content from multiple articles as "a violation of WP:NPOV" and being of "undue wieght" on PIA topics

    [edit]

    Maxwhollymoralground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been disruptively removing sourced content from multiple articles, citing WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, when there are no problems with the stuff that you've removed.

    There is nothing wrong with the text removed in those edits, and, in fact, is removal of the pro-palestinian pov and is creating a WP:NPOV issue [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]

    but when they got reverted, they reverted the reversions with similar vague edit summaries [153] [154] [155] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that there may be a similar instance in Gaza war protests. Borgenland (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    its already in the diffs above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the imperfect-but-better-than-nothing model we use to generate statistics for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, Maxwhollymoralground has only made 16 revisions to pages within the topic area since registering in 2020. This suggests that they are probably unfamiliar with the interesting and complicated dynamics and the special rules there. They should probably be given a chance to become more familiar with things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A user that has been here for 5 years should at least know that removing sourced and relevant content from articles (regardless of the topic of the article is), falsely citing WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, should know that what they're doing is wrong. All they paragraphs that they've removed had no issues but instead of at least trying to fix the issues they claim to have found, they just deleted the whole thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A paragraph being well-sourced doesn't magically make it "undeletable". Too address two examples, the article "Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war" is about incidents of Anti-Palestinian racism related to the Israel-Hamas war. IMHO neither some guy relocating to another country or some students getting arrested at a anti-tuition fee protest qualifies. And even if they supposedly did, I don't think they warrant inclusion compared to the other examples. "the historical realities of the Nakba" is clearly NPOV, because the "historical realities" and interpretations are very much disputed. Honestly, that article is a mess and would be better served by a list-style Wikitable. None of my editing was disruptive, this seems to be just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do agree that your editing is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Removing the image of the logo of the Arabic wiki per "undue weight" when it is relevant to the paragraph of text about it is just a IDLI arguement. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Heavy-handed editing is pretty common when people start editing in the topic area. Apparently, this editor is "continually amazed at the level of Anti-Israel bias on the English Wikipedia" and decided to address this by erasing the reported death toll. Quite a novel approach. I have no idea why because they didn't say. I think a simple solution for these situations is for editors to be required to follow BRD. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have only looked at the first couple of links, but have noticed that there's clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE on Gaza war protests, considering it's 18,000 words long. A quick scan through the article shows that at least 90% of its contents describe pro-Palestinian protests, so any attempt to actually follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TOOBIG will end up cutting more pro-Palestine content than pro-Israeli. With this in mind, the cutting of bloated "reaction quotes" and tangential information might be the most actual improvement the page has seen in a while. Considering doing a large-scale trim of that page, like I did for Gaza war a few months back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with what's going on that article, but there are still issues with their edits on the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war articles 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already explained myself in regards to the "Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war" article above. As for the "Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" article, nothing about my edit summaries was "vague". Only including a pro-Palestinian solidarity picture is obviously a NPOV violation. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise getting familiar with articles before opening ANI sections in which you explicitly state there is nothing wrong with the article, Abo Yemen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gaza war protests article is a strong example of the larger issue across Wikipedia that we are written far too much recentism information about news events without considering the encyclopedic quality of the article, eg fundamentally against Wikipedia:NOTNEWS . Trimming down to be more a summary that such protests exists and long term effects of the protests is necessary, and as noted by Abo above, this likely will remove more pro-Palenstine content simply due to the relative weight of the content already being mostly pro-Palenstine in the first place. Masem (t) 16:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't agree more, the "Gaza war protests" and "Anti-Palestinianism during the Gaza war" articles are disjointed tallies of news articles. I don't even think there should be a per-country-summary, there should be one article covering all protests. It has gotten a bit better though, there previously were articles about specific protests. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not expecting to have this opinion but after reading the diffs, I actually agree that some of the removed content in diffs 155, 158, and 163 do have potential WP:NPOV issues. To be honest, I was a bit surprised that in an area as tightly regulated as WP:ARBPIA that non-NPOV language like in those examples exists within the article. On the other hand, however, diff 156 seems pretty self-evidently inappropriate. I can't see any valid policy reason for removing "anti-semitism and anti-Palestinian racism" from a sentence about the negative consequences of the war. The remaining diffs were too complex for me to make an assessment on face value without additional research or reading the rest of the article (to see if it is WP:UNDUE, I would need to read the entire article).
    All this to say, I think it would be inappropriate for ANI to stick its head into an ARBPIA content dispute based on whether there is "nothing wrong with the text". That discussion should be happening on the article talk pages. Rather, the main issue here is the editor's drive-by removals of content and then subsequent reversions when challenged, instead of seeking consensus on the talk page: has Maxwhollymoralground shown a willingness to change that behaviour and move to talk instead? FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain diff 156: The original sentence read "Some of the protests have resulted in violence and accusations of antisemitism and anti-Palestinianism". I removed "and anti-Palestinianism" because it gives undue weight to accusations of anti-Palestinianism, which have been far less, naturally, as there have been far less pro-Israel protests. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "in an area as tightly regulated as WP:ARBPIA that non-NPOV language like in those examples exists within the article" have you read the Pallywood article? Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Attacks

    [edit]

    95.70.115.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) conducted multiple personal attacks towards an editor in edit summaries. See diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3. Also I did warn the user of personal attack (level 4im, considering the direct accusation of an editor, multiple times), but another user (mistakenly but in good faith) removed the warning. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Remsense didn't "mistakenly" remove your L4 warning. Their edit summary was "egregious". This means they thought your warning was—per Mirriam-Webster—"conspicuously bad". Similarly to how you misrepresented their edit, I think you have misidentified personal attacks. Now, the anon's edits may not have been constructive (I don't know). But who were they personally attacking? An editor called Wikian, apparently. I don't know who that is either. But they haven't edited the articles you link to. Were they perhaps complaining that Wikipedia congenitally misrepresents that particular information (again, I have no idea as to the merits of the complaint)? But saying 'Wikipedia consistently misrepresents this topic' is not an unusual view, and indeed, is one which many established editors would probably endorse in various areas.
    However they are probably editing warring. But it takes two to tango, as they say. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor called Wikian exists. Here is an example (it's editing the article referred to in diff 1; also note that the editor had majorly edited the article). In any case, the anon didn't need to extensively and personally attack Wikian, accusing them of violating multiple policies (such as WP:NOR), and certainly didn't need to do this multiple times. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaah. It's Wikain then. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for my typo. But my point stands, the editor from that example is Wikain (no typo). Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple of things:
    • I looked at those cited diffs by User:Alpha Beta Delta Lambda, and I do not consider those edit summaries "personal attacks". They read to me like the typical language you would hear when an editor disagrees with an edit. As someone who's been editing for nearly three years (and lurked around for several years more), I have seen people say far, far worse things than that.
    • User:ToBeFree has now blocked the IP for 1 week for edit warring, as well as semi-protected most of the affected articles for 3 months.
    • User:Remsense (who not only deleted the level 4im warning rightfully but also reverted most of the IP's edits) has started a talk page thread at Talk:History of the transistor § Clarity on claims / who's socking where and why? asking for help/input on the actual content dispute behind this edit war. — AP 499D25 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MichaelBradleyJenkins

    [edit]

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

    Repeated attempts to add unsourced additions [1] [2] [3] to John Jenkins (governor) and one [4] on David Jenkins (Royalist) and admitted to have a COI on talk page. Requesting a partial block on those pages. Thewindbird (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've invited the editor to come and participate in this discussion. But he is actually arguing that he has a family genealogy that goes back to Adam! That's an unwarranted certainty that has been hard to get through with other editors who have come here to write about their families. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam Smith, perhaps? EEng 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he claims ancestry via 126 unbroken male line generations going back 6,029 years. That works out to an average paternal age of 50. I guess men were men back then. EEng 23:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:EEng#s, I just came across another editor today who claimed he had been made a saint by the Catholic Church, had won 4 Nobel Prizes, served as the President of the U.S. for a while along with other unlikely honors. Again, I think intoxication is a factor with some of these boasts. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    KhndzorUtogh

    [edit]
    I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. If there's something else that needs to be discussed, please start a new thread in the appropriate venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Belatedly, if I'm being bribed, I'm also being stiffed. Given the IP here has been on a specific /17 range since at least July 2023 (with what looks like very little potential collateral damage), appears to be evading at least one and possibly two blocks, and (from the above) absolutely cares not for the ECR provisions of WP:GS/AA, I've blocked that range for three months. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user called "KhndzorUtogh" is canvassing admins and directly ordering them to block users he doesn't agree or simlply dislikes them just because they are Turkish. (KhdnzorUtogh is armenian and he openly shows his hate towards Turks on many of his actions on Wikipedia.) He falsely claimed that a user is denying armenian 'genocide' and ordered an admin to block him and the admin did it moments ago. He removed a sourced content without adequate explanation from the Iğdır Province article just because it was mentioned a massacre against Turks by armenians. I think it's time for real admins to investigate the relationship between "KhdnzorUtogh" and several senior Wikipedia admins, especially Bushranger.

    Look here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&diff=prev&oldid=1293179611

    he directly ordered the so-called "neutral" admin Bushranger to take action against a Turkish user. I guess KhdnzorUtogh and Bushranger have a bribing relationship or something like that in real life. Because armenian far-right lobbyists are notorious for bribing people for their own nationalistic agenda. Something like exposed to the public when U.S. 'senator' Menendez imprisoned for taking bribes from greek and armenian lobbies. Ironically, that's why "armenia" is in a miserable situation right now, because they spend millions and millions of dollars for anti-Turkish propaganda on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet.

    This person called "KhndzorUtogh" orders the admin Bushranger to "take action" against some users (who are always Turkish users for some reason. I wonder why??) and the admin immediately carries out the order. How is such a thing possible? I thought Wikipedia was "neutral" but it has apparently fallen into the hands of armenian nationalist and fascist lobbies who bribe the admins. I think we need to investigate in detail what KhdnzorUtogh is doing. Tell me this clearly if bribing an admin is allowed on Wikipedia, let me give admins some "gift" in exchange for spreading Turkish point of view here. If not, then stop the user called KhndzorUtogh. He is using Wikipedia for spreading misinformation and his own nationalistic agenda.

    In April, I demanded another investigation for KhdnzorUtogh because he apparently used a IP address for sockpuppet. But no admin take action so far.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285554604&diffonly=1 37.155.47.4 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notify both editors please. You better have proof of bribery taking place for the assertion you have made. – robertsky (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @KhndzorUtogh I don't have a proof but think for a while, what kind of interests does Bushranger got by blocking some users or "protecting" some pages after KhndzorUtogh demanded it. Maybe they are real-life friends, maybe bribing, maybe they are part of the same nationalistic agenda. Whatever the reason, it is UNACCEPTABLE that an admin does "favors" upon KhndzorUtog's requests. KhndzorUtogh's demands have no justified reasons. He is just pushing his POV and using admins for this purpose. It's clear he is not a good guy and not working for free and neutral encyclopedia. 37.155.47.4 (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing an admin of accepting a bribe in exchange for doling out a sanction is an extremely serious accusation and this entire post violates WP:ASPERSIONS. Your post essentially admits that this accusation is entirely speculative and that you have no evidence to support this - "Armenian lobbyists bribe people, so I guess The Bushranger has been bribed" is not evidence. I hope an admin reading this strikes this post immediately and that you exercise more judgment and caution before making these sorts of accusations in the future. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me unpack this. User A makes edits he is not allowed to make as the article in question is covered by special rules given that it is a contentious topic. User B informs the user that he should not edit the topic. User A continues despite this. B brings the activity by user A to the attention of an administrator, who posts a more "official" warning regarding the rules on contentious topic.
    How does this suggest bribery or a conspiracy by "armenian [sic] nationalist and facist lobbies"? Please, do yourself a favour, withdraw the complaint, and you may yet avoid the WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    noting that there is a discussion about the user(s) involved here above (#IR-TheFirstSoldier) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User 79.151.82.147

    [edit]
    Edit-warring on National Movement (Poland)--PawPatroler (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For edit warring, you'll get a faster response by filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, not ANI. We have admins who regularly patrol that noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Revoke talk page access for User:Wawforall

    [edit]

    Please revoke TPA for Wawforall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they are using it for promotion. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the edit, which appears to be re-posting the text they'd originally posted into articlespace that got them blocked originally. Not 100% sure TPA yoinking is necessary yet, if they repeat though... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User repeatedly adds non-notable subjects to music articles, then vandalizes my userpage when I remove this info

    [edit]

    Pomidor4ik2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly re-adding information about non-notable music artists to a few articles (a couple of list articles, and the article for outsider music). I reverted these edits when I noticed them late last month, roughly a week and a half before the edits were made. Today, I noticed that the user not only re-added said non-notable info [which they even said in one of their edit summaries "Just interesting marginal musician", implying non-notability to begin with], they edited my userpage with this edit that says "syn prostitutki" - this translates to "son of a bitch". Previously, this user apparently repeatedly added this non-notable information in February and March, which were reverted then. I only noticed their May edits before this incident, but this user seems to be a repeat offender. Maybe they're just not aware of the notability guidelines and how to prove notability, but on the other hand, they don't seem to want to learn said guidelines and instead just want to promote a musical artist or two that they like. The insulting edit to my user page [not even my talk page] leaves a sour taste in my mouth though, and I'm not sure that they will learn regardless of what they're told, or otherwise how to proceed. --GVOLTT How's my editing?\My contribs 02:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted an invitaton for them to join this discussion and also warned them about the personal attack. They are not a regular editor though so I'm not sure when they will be logged back in here on this platform. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken

    [edit]

    Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales was closed after being listed at WP:CR & rather than following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, four editors have reverted the closure and the implementation of the consensus:

    1. 21:27-21:41, 31 May 2025 by BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. 06:27-06:34, 1 June 2025 by Wyll Ravengard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 20:09, 1 June 2025 by NutmegCoffeeTea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. 22:18, 1 June 2025 by 199.255.150.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I don't know why these editors have not started a proper closure challenge and instead gone with reverting & edit war behavior. The first two editors were notified by @ToBeFree ([156] and [157]) that this was an invalid approach; @OceanHok & I started a conversation on the talk page highlighting the correct closure procedure & the third editor responded there when reverting. I also reached out to the closing editor who stated:

    Seems it's been sorted out now, thanks. For the record:

    • The RfC wording was neutral – a one-sentence question asking if a specific fact should be included in the lead or not.
    • The RfC had run long enough, with nearly nine days since the last comment at the time of my close.
    • The additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome.
      — User:Toadspike 09:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

    I would like the closure & consensus to be reimplemented without causing an edit war. If any of the editors who have been reverting want to challenge the closure, then they can format their own request. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No one here is challenging close content, to my understanding they're simply saying that the discussion is still going on. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is not applicable here and explicitly says that it does not cover the scenario where an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion.
    This should be closed when the discussion runs its course. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WHENCLOSE highlights it should occur after the discussion has stopped & "when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful". Two editors running to add comments after a closure – which occurred nine days after the RfC's last comment – mostly seems like editors unhappy with the consensus especially since their comments voted against the consensus that the closure determined. The closing editor even states that "the additional comment posted by BMWF would not have changed the outcome".
    Additionally, when you participated in the RfC on 22 May 2025, you didn't have an issue with the way the RfC was structured; you only claimed there was a WP:RFCNEUTRAL issue after the closure occurred. This argument seems like "I don't like the consensus so let me challenge the basis of the RfC". If you want to challenge it, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE highlights you should use Template:RfC closure review & start a discussion at WP:AN. Being the third editor to revert a closure when there's a talk page discussion highlighting the closure challenge procedure (which you engaged with when reverting) is simply WP:DISRUPTIVE. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; that there were no comments over the course of nine days (last comment before closure, closure) does indeed seem to me to be a strong indication a discussion has [run] its course. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor didn't notify anyone, so it went 3 days without any response, had some votes on just two calendar days, and then nothing as people are still figuring out that this RfC exists. Closure would be premature. Even the Tetris RFC is still open. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The language at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing RfCs suggests nothing at having mandatory notifications to individual editors. If one is interested in the discussion(s), the talk page would have appeared on their watchlist or one would have revisited the talk page during the intervening week for further discussions. As such, I find that the close by Toadspike is justifiable. – robertsky (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is disputing the mechanics of it. Just that, at least now, its apparent that it would be too soon. The typical duration for them is 30 days so there's no particular reason to demand an early close when multiple editors are still interested. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No new comment had been made for 10 days before it was closed. 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:8903:5610:9C39:C74 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    l voted when I did because I didn't know that RFC even existed. The IP who started it didn't make it clear that it was different than the other RFC on the page. It isn't fair to force the discussion closed when multiple people still want to comment. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE review is not necessary if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those editors did not ask, though. They force opened a formally closed RfC. As stated below by the closer, no one contacted him. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, closer here. It seems the discussion has been unilaterally reopened, but the RfC tag has not been re-added. If the (now several) editors who are disputing the close had followed the guidance at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and asked me on my Talk page to reverse the close, I likely would have done so. However, they did not, and the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. One wonders how nothing happens for over a week, whereupon the close suddenly prompts three or four editors to finally pipe up. Toadspike [Talk] 05:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there was enough time to discuss or contribute to the matter before closure. It is also such a simple decision that usually would not require the RfC procedure (a single chart week of a single country in the lead). AN appears to be the only way to conclude this, unfortunately. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because editing started. Personally I didn't know about it until my entry which illustrates that waiting a bit on the close would be useful to give time to people. With a close now there wouldn't be nearly enough time. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion had a clear consensus and no new comment had been made for 10 days. Someone can make a new RFC in the future but this one is done.2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:54A4:5FFF:DCF1:B61B (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it was "no consensus". And it's not done which is self-evident or this discussion wouldn't exist. 2403:5804:3916:0:25F8:2EE9:A809:F807 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Click here to see the closer's comment 2A00:FBC:EEE8:A781:8903:5610:9C39:C74 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with Toadspike closing the discussion. The discussion is open for a considerable amount of time (2 weeks), and it has no new response for nearly a week. The three editors who reverted (Wyll, BMWF, NutmegCoffeeTea), however, are definitely wrong, especially NutmegCoffeeTea who still insist on edit warring DESPITE being explictly told not to do so AND being pointed to the correct venue to overturn a RfC result. You have channels to reopen a closed discussion. Edit warring at a consensus-building process is 100% WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviours, and you still do it despite being warned. Given the closer is already consulted here, those opposing should follow due process and go to WP:AN for closure review if they insist.
    The three editors are currently participating in several ongoing RfCs (see the ones here and here). Their behaviours here (forcing open a closed RfC result that does not favour their viewpoint) is extremely concerning. Who knows what other excuses they will come up with to oppose the next RfC close? This is not the first time they disrupt/disrespect existing consensus-building mechanisms (they have forced their way through WP:BRD in another article to keep their desired version, accused editors of forumshopping when they merely try to consult the relevant WikiProject, and opened bad faith sockpuppet investigations on people who oppose them.) This is just the latest example of them WP:NOTHERE. OceanHok (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously Toadspike's close was sound, and will stand, regardless of any deletion review. On the behavioral aspects, all three unhappy editors are relatively new and certainly inexperienced—BMVF 7 months, Wyll Ravengard 1 month, NutmegCoffeeTea 9 months, with 321, 38 and 286 edits respectively—as shown by the shifting arguments. But because of this, perhaps some trout apiece and a recommendation to read CLOSECHALLENGE. And also WP:EDITWAR. There has been a significant amount of logged-out editing on that article—obviously, we shouldn't speculate who that is—but some protection might help calm things down. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: striking my suggestion of trouting; I was unaware of the extensive background as provided by OceanHok. Frankly, the whole thing smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, CIVPOV-pushing, tag-teaming and copious ABF. As such, I think the best way of preventing further disruption over multiple venues is to remove them from the topic. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now E/C protected, and I reverted to LCV. The behavioral problems are far worse than I thought; these three editors have edit-warred and weaponized several of our processes in an attempt to "Win". Starting SPIs is a new low. Re. the masses of logged-out editing, while CUs won't connect IPs to accounts, they can still look: Checkuser needed. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OceanHok's battleground attempt to target his editing opponents has a grand total of 1 diff, and even that doesn't support any of the vague allegations. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna imperatrix mundi Who are you requesting to be looked at? Izno (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked some of the accounts around that article per this ANI thread earlier today; I didn't see anything that suggested direct socking, although that doesn't rule out any potential coordination/meatpuppetry issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be just me, but the more I read through this post and look at the information that’s being argued over the more I get the sense that this may be one of those undisclosed paid editing firms attempting to do PR work in hopes of improving product information. Numbers sold and income made, and the place at the top of the paragraph where would be most visible, seem to me to suggest PR editing. Anyone else get that vibe here, or is it just me? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, TomStar81; I mention 'almost-almost as certain conflcts of interest and promotionalsm in the actual editing area' below, but of course, an organised firm would make a lot of sense. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While they don't particularly bother me, you should both strike these claims, because they're not true at all. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the overlap with Assassin's Creed Shadows and Dragon Age: The Veilguard, it is likely that they're driven more by culture-war stuff. All three games have been at the focus of culture wars related to representation in gaming, although with Forspoken it was a bit less prominent because the game just wasn't successful enough for people arguing over it on the internet to attract coverage - I don't think that aspect ever got serious coverage, so our article doesn't mention it. (though I haven't actually searched much to see what coverage exists - focusing on that might have been a better use of their time than arguing over sales.) But either way that culture-war stuff was definitely present in the corners of the internet that fixate on such things, so I wouldn't be surprised if their edits are somehow related to that, especially given the politics / Gamergate stuff below. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Broader pattern of poor conduct

    [edit]
    In my view, this RFC reversion is not a standalone issue and Sariel Xilo is being extraordinarily kind by only raising that issue. There is a chronic pattern of disruption from this group. They do not meaningfully engage in discussions: they have a suspiciously overlapping pattern of voting together on RFCs and supporting each other's edit warring. I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopaedia—their (very low) history of contributions clearly show they are here to argue about a very narrow set of topics, chiefly the inclusion of sales information on leads. If it is positive information (as in Forspoken), they want it included; if it is negative (as in Dragon Age: The Veilguard) they want it removed. This is all because they have no ability to assume good faith and would rather mudsling and cast aspersions.
    BMWF has the most obvious pattern of poor behaviour; if they are socks of each other (as suggested above), I suspect this is the primary account. The other accounts only surfaced after BMWF was repeatedly warned for edit warring (see timeline by Fortuna above).
    Frankly, I am exhausted by this group. They do not want to reach consensus. They want their preferred version of articles to be maintained, to barely participate in discussions, and now clearly show they won't even accept RFC outcomes. They do absolutely nothing but assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with them, as I outlined here about BWMF.
     Looks like a duck to me. These accounts barely contribute beyond these trivial disputes about whether to include sales information in the lead, voting together, and restoring the version of the article they all prefer. I support topic bans for all of the subjects in this case, and strongly urge that they be checkusered. Edit: see my vote with the others. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This entire post is one giant bad faith assumption against one of your editing opponents, with little to no diffs that actually support the allegations. BMWF has taken positions against content in the Veilguard article that you authored. The only editor that has actually been blocked here is Vestigium Leonis, who is someone that agrees with you on these Gamergate issues and is entirely absent from your post. You selectively ignore the battleground rhetoric and edit warring from Oceanhok and Vestigium Leonis, as well as the broader tag team editing between them and Sariel Xilo, the misuse of processs for advantages in disputes, the POV push, and so on. I don't have much more to add as I don't have problems with any editors individually, and I'm not going to feed into your attempt to target your editing opponents. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What are these Gamergate issues that you accuse editors of, and where did I agree to clear Gamergate-related issues? Anyway, for completeness' sake, yes, I received a single topic block for Forspoken, as I was engaged in excessive reverts. I acknowledged this in an exchange with ToBeFree. I took this seriously and have since avoided excessive revert reactions, opting instead to reach out to other editors or administrators for assistance (unless you disagree, @ToBeFree). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I provided 13 diffs. Secondly, I don't have "editing opponents"—that's a battleground mentality we do not share. I have a record of producing featured content "anti-woke" editors would not like. In fact, I originally agreed with the position you share with BWMF... and changed my mind when the wider context was explained to me by Shooterwalker. Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is editing in bad faith—for example, as you did here at WT:VG and I recommended against—shows you can't focus on content. I don't know, but suspect, that you simply think any editor who disagrees with you is a bad-faith actor. Given your record of guessing (poorly) at my motivations, I find it hard to accept when you do it to others. With your persistent ABF attitude (as in the reply to me above) and tag-team editing (as in the reason this entire thread was made), I'm pretty convinced you should be topic-banned.
    You opened a baseless Sockpuppet investigation on an editor for being a sock of someone they warned for edit warring. I've never seen a user get notified of a SPI by the investigator before (so that's an achievement). IMO this is enough to reasonably suggest you might be involved in that behaviour ("Every accusation's a confession" springs to mind. ). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of your links are links to discussions. The diffs you've provided don't substantiate nearly any of the claims you've made. Your post and this is an obvious case of ABF, and a battleground attempt to remove editors you disagree with. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I am providing evidence of other editors highlighting a persistent pattern of bad behaviour, those are going to be on Talk and User talk pages. Those sort of discussions do not happen on article space.
    For example, I cited your baseless SPI as evidence that you see editors who disagree with you as bad-faith actors. (You haven't responded to that (and didn't apologise to the editor you accused.) This is because you see them as an "opponent". I don't see you as an opponent. I see you as an editor like any other, but with behavioural patterns that are causing disruption—for example, when you reverted an RFC closure you didn't like.
    There's an old phrase among lawyers: "If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table". This is table pounding. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're linking to user pages, talk pages, and things like warning template removals while not linking to anything actionable that supports the allegations you're making against editors here. The table is indeed pounding, and you should stop. Regardless of the word you want to use, you are very clearly fishing and using ANI to attempt to remove topic area editors you disagree with. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to discussions in which three editors have displayed consistently disruptive behavior is the usual method of demonstrating that three editors have displayed consistently disruptive behavior in discussions. Hope that clears things up. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the usual method. Diffs are the usual method and they are lacking here. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerns about user behaviour would include talk pages, I can't see why this is a problem. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posts regarding problematic behaviour on user pages, talk pages, and warnings typically link to the problematic behaviour.
    People are voting on on whether to topic ban you, but you're choosing to spend time arguing with me over the quality of my evidence... regarding another editor? No comments on the allegations I've made about your conduct (i.e., the time-wasting, baseless SPI as evidence of your inability to assume good faith)? Unusual, at the least. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality of your evidence is being called out because it is incredibly weak. Not coincidentally the three editors you are targeting voted against your position in the RfC in which you do have strong views. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've addressed very few of the actual concerna about your behaviour being raised here, and quality of the evidence hasn't been "called out" by anyone other than the users it's targeting. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, NutmegCoffeeTea, here is the "usual method", diffs of you engaging in edit warring.
    I was actually surprised to see this edit summary from NutmegCoffeeTea and BMWF because they actually do know what's WP:BURDEN is, yet they completely forget about it in the next discussion when you pushed through BRD to keep your desired version of the article immediately after the protection period ends when it was your turn to justify inclusion. This simply suggest they are weaponizing our basic policies and gaming the process to achieve what they want, and that is a BIG NO. OceanHok (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately this is nonsense. You can't combine different edits from multiple articles to push your ABF agenda someone you disagree with. On Forspoken my edits were already looked at, and the only one who was blocked was Vestigium Leonis which is one of your editing buddies. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you mean, he can't notice and cite an editing pattern across multiple articles? And BMWF's 14 revert edits to Forespoken in particular are absolutely worth noting here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? The content issue and the editing pattern across these articles are the same. The editing and behavioral patterns demonstrated by all of you are also the same. I no longer need to "assume" bad faith when there is plenty of evidence to show that you are WP:NOTHERE. OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:PhilKnight has blocked the anon. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence of OceanHok, below, also demonstrates severe problems with taking advice. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the continuing IDHT and re-entrenchment demonstrated in the (non)responses here, I'm also leaning towards an indef. Per Abo Yemen; ImaginesTigers; Kowal2701. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also worth mentioning that while the heated RfC debate on Forspoken is ongoing, they push the same across other articles (see Talk:Star Wars Outlaws and Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard) knowing very well that there will be opposition. They are never the first editor that perform the controversial edit [182][183](it was always IP/new editor), but they always participated in the edit war that directly follows it. They also never initiate discussion. Discussions were nearly always initiated by the other side, even when the WP:ONUS is on them (they are challenging the status quo both within and across articles).
    My biggest problem with them is that their arguments are constantly shifting and contradicting, their interpretation of policies remained (very) wrong despite being corrected by experienced editors repeatedly, they have a tendency to not respond to very reasonable questions, and they just keep on regurgitating the same arguments again and again. It is like talking to a brick wall, so engaging with them has been difficult.
    • My attempt at compromise was ignored (till this very day), yet they went to revive a very dead discussion about editor conduct.
    • BMWF supported including only notable milestones yet supported the inclusion of a non-notable milestone in an article as recognized by the consensus.
    • I provided counter-examples to show BMWF the other side, yet they were either ignored till this day/ dismissed with constantly moving goalposts while constantly regurgitating his own OTHERSTUFF that also makes no sense (Your examples are bad, but Forspoken is like Mario! and Star Wars!).
    • NutmegCoffeeTea said that inclusion of publisher's statement should be based on a case-by-case basis, only to use OTHERSTUFF to support them.
    • When I agreed with her in another article (calling her argument a possible consensus), she then said there is no consensus.
    It is ok to make flawed argument (especially true for newbies). What's problematic is that when they are shown their arguments are flawed, they will not respond to any of that, but they will reuse that very same, flawed argument later (that's why this content dispute has gone through two very long local talk page discussion, nearly five RfCs, a lengthy WikiProject discussion, and now ANI).
    I will have to say, the only thing consistent about them is them insinuating editors opposing them part of Gamergate, which is (1) baseless (2) is irrelevent to the actual discussion (3) is disruptive at this point when I have reminded the three of them to STOP bringing politics to these discussions as they lead us nowhere close to a consensus. I believe that's the problem. Their competence issue stems from them being WP:POV pushers. In conclusion, I absolutely support banning them. OceanHok (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the casting aspersions that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow supporting Gamergate or other culture war stuff is a recurring problem. They've baselessly insinuated that about myself as well, despite the fact that I 1) don't support it and 2) actively try to avoid the subject area because it always gets so messy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support strongly. Their number one function appears to be POV pushing, bad faith assumptions, and specifically BMWF has a bad habit of trying to create a chilling effect from any discussions that doesn't support their POV (as outlined above, I gave them a final warning to stop that because they kept disrupting a very basic WikiProject discussion on brainstorming how to handle article/lead writing.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I support any action being taken on any combination of them, TBAN, partial block, or full block. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose OceanHok, ImaginesTiger, and Sergecross73 etc have all taken strong content positions against me, Nutmeg, Wyll and others in a recent RfC. BMWF (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      same thing here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      On the claim that they are being targeted in revenge for a content dispute: a) the editors they are associated with have done precisely that, and b) making unevidenced assertions without actually trying to refute the evidence merely strengthens those allegations. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding the "strong position" I took against you, I recommend others read their argument and my direct response.
      The Forspoken RFC reversions show you three can't accept when the community decides against you. On that Talk, I didn't even vote because I thought it was pointless BATTLEGROUND stuff. You do not engage in dispute resolution beyond insisting that you're right and others are bad. Robert even stated in his closing remarks at DRN that you didn't even show up to the noticeboard... and yet you continued to fight over the content when it was done. Because that's the point. You want to avoid consensus and fatigue editors to get your way.
      I've never seen so much disruption from one person (and over the most boring content imaginable)—multiple massive, circular Talk discussions, multiple page protections, two RFCs. And now you 3 are reverting an RFC closure... like c'mon. What a total waste of everyone's time. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I have been pinged about an alleged pattern of bad behavior including a dispute that I tried to mediate six months ago, and have not been following since then. I will not comment at this time until I have reread the dispute. I will reread the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, per Fortuna and Imagines. The chronic edit warring, disregard of policy, and tag-teaming are becoming too apparent. I've interacted with them a limited number of times, but I've had similar experiences. (I wasn't involved in this most recent Japan RFC though.) Based on the readings of this thread however, these situations appear to be far too common. Behavior smacks of WP:NOTHERE. Just10A (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just10A is not an observer and has defended the discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors[184], from the person who started the Forspoken discussion. Just10A and OceanHok, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, ImaginesTigers, Sergecross73 all share deep content positions in The Veilguard and other political disputes like Assassin's Creed Shadows. BMWF (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In my comment below, I referenced your habit of trying to link that TBANed editor (FMSky) to the comments made by other editors you disagree with to poison the well. FMSky did start a discussion back in March 2025 on Forspoken about the lead & stopped editing there before the RfCs (if I recall the timeline correctly, this overlapped with them getting that GENSEX TBAN & it was determined Forspoken fell within the TBAN but I didn't keep track of what user talk that occurred on). This was all around when I reported you, NTC, & Vestigium Leonis for 3RR at Forspoken; Just10A popped up in that AN discussion but I don't think has participated in any of the video game talks.
      This March 2025 discussion led to two RfCs - Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead in April 2025 (this is still open) & Talk:Forspoken#Follow-up RFC on Japan sales in May 2025 (this is the closure that led to my ANI post). OceanHok participated in both (including starting the 1st RfC) as did Vestigium Leonis & Sergecross73 (the latter took a slightly different position than the other 2 in the second RfC), I only participated in the 1st RfC (& then implemented the consensus after the 2nd RfC was closed), & ImaginesTigers has not participated in either RfC. We've all had overlap in supporting similar content inclusions across various video game article but we've also had differences. While you keep saying we all must be pushing some political view that is the same, you haven't actually been able to provide examples outside of "FMSky got TBANed for behavior elsewhere". It is casting aspersions to keep implying that our editing is supporting something like gamergate especially if your only evidence is a tenuous connection to FMSky where some of us agreed with points they made in the initial March 2025 Forspoken discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This again. I first met this group when they were having a dispute with @FMSky who ended up being GENSEX topic banned. I pointed out that I believed that discussion had some real procedural issues, and I still do. How that has any relevance to this discussion or "speaks to my bias" is beyond me. If anything, I hope that the community recognizing this groups behavior might lend FMSky some help in altering his Tban in the future, cause he was probably baited. However, that's a tangental subject.
      Also FYI, I have never interacted with the Veilguard or AC Shadows pages, including the talks, and I have never edited the Forespoken article. So there goes those "deep content positions." Just10A (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Similar to other commenters, I am also now leaning toward an indef for all (maybe not for Wyll). Just10A (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a TBAN (assuming video games but maybe it should be all media released since 2010 since their focus seems to be caught up in recentism). Along with a TBAN, I think they should all be limited to 1R instead of 3RR for 6-12 months because they often revert 2-3 times as a block to avoid going past 3RR. OceanHok & ImaginesTigers have pulled out some of the main diffs that show the larger pattern of bludgeoning behavior & POV pushing. I'm also concerned with how they don't assume good faith; their style of casting aspersions was also seen when I reported BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea (also reported Vestigium Leonis but isn't the focus here) for 3RR. During that discussion (& for a bit afterwards in other talks), they tried to say because some other editor was TBANed from GENSEX for their actions in non-video game articles, that editor's position in video game discussions is enough of a poison well that any editor who supported similar positions which opposed their arguments was clearly suspect and probably gamergate. (That report is also a good example of their "revert as a block" editing pattern). They've since simplified it to just implying the only reason people oppose their views is they must secretly support gamergate even though editors like myself & ImaginesTigers have repeatedly highlighted clear examples of our work on other GENSEX articles that show we don't have issues editing in this area.
    Beyond their inability to assume a NPOV, they also seem to have decided any editing by "opposing" editors must be suspect & reverted rather than assuming good faith & evaluating things on a case by case basis. For example, I found an issue at Assassin's Creed Shadows (quotations were either incorrect paraphrases within quotation marks or direct quotes not within quotation marks) while working on the reception section which BMWF immediately reverted without doing any verification & it was only after other editors chimed in that they agreed that particular issue needed to be corrected. If they had assumed good faith instead of just jumping to reversion, they could have easily found the issue (it was pointed out in the edit summary) or pinged me on the talk to say "hey, I'm not seeing this issue. Can you elaborate with examples?". Another example of not assuming good faith & turning something into a BATTLEGROUND was NutmegCoffeeTea starting a SPI accusing me of using socks (such as the aforementioned Vestigium Leonis) in what felt like a retaliatory report because Vestigium Leonis & I were their "opponents". As outlined by other editors above, I feel like we've exhausted every dispute resolution process possible to deescalate & find consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support video game topic bans for all three based on my reasoning above. The behavioural patterns here – voting together on RFCs; accusing others of being sockpuppets; tag-teaming edit warring; constant aspersions – suggest strong impetus for CheckUser input. If the accounts are connected, I'd obviously support an indef instead. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Edit: I have altered my proposal to an indefinite. See reasoning here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]
      Not to derail things, there was a SPI report in March 2025 which accused NutmedCoffeeTea of using BMWF as a sock; when looking at it during my April 2025 3RR report, I assumed it was retaliatory since it was started by the TBANed editor (who I mentioned above) they were in conflict with. Here's what the conclusion states if someone else wants to do an updated investigation: "It is extremely common, in topic areas like this, for many distinct editors to make similar edits to the same small number of pages and have, in broad strokes, similar editing styles; this is something any SPI clerk learns very early on, and it's why we tend to look for narrow similarities like word choice, edit summary style, preferred talkpage arguments, etc. I'm not going to rule out the possibility of sockpuppetry here, but it would need to be based on a clear showing of behavioral similarities other than shared POV or common shared interest". Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not derailing at all. I think there's enough to indicate a CU could be useful. The strongest evidence for all three being associated—not necessarily socks—is that all suddenly learned about the RFC, reverting and commenting, shortly after closure. Likewise, all share the "us–them", "everyone-is-a-GamerGater" battleground stuff (for example, Wyll here, BWMF here, and NutmegCoffeeTea calling people "opponents" all over this thread). I don't know the CU threshold so will leave it to others. In any case, IMO the conduct is poor and persistent enough that the TBAN is warranted even without a CU. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BMWF and NCT are the same person, but some of the newer accounts that have !voted in RfCs might be socks. What's strange is that the IPs are editing without proxy (at least in the case I filed they weren't) and WHOIS doesn't line up, so either there's some social-media-driven meatpuppetry, they're using sophisticated proxies, or it's a massive coincidence. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, credit to Ocean Hok and Sariel Xilo for putting up with this for so long, looked thoroughly unenjoyable. FWIW, in the previous SPI case I filed against NCT that was rejected, I think it’s much more likely BlackVulcanX is a sock of BMWF, and their !votes at the two RfCs reinforce this immensely. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The lack of any contrition or even acknowledgment of wrongndoing makes me lean towards indef Kowal2701 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for all three and checkuser. Everything I have seen from these editors on talk pages strongly suggests to me that they are NOTHERE. I agree with ImaginesTigers that they should be checkusered; their behavior has looked too heavily coordinated for the possibility of sockpuppetry to be ignored. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as well as a CU. The constant aspersions about Gamergate strike me as projection. While it is true that these games have been the subject of agenda-pushing offwiki, they are the only ones pushing an agenda about them onwiki. I'm inclined to think that this is some kind of coordinated meat campaign rather than sockpuppetry, but there's certainly enough evidence for a CU anyway. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose So, uh, what exactly did I do? Sry if there is some unwritten rule I didn't know about. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What I have concluded on reading this history (and reading the history was an unpleasant civic duty) is that this appears to be a continuing combined content and conduct dispute involving at least two video game articles, Forspoken and Dragon Age: The Veilguard and three editors, BMWF., NutmegCoffeeTea, and Wyll Ravengard. My initial involvement was with a DRN involving Sariel Xilo, Wikibenboy94, and BMWF. BMWF did not participate in the DRN. Participation in DRN is voluntary, but in this case the failure to participate appears to have been part of a pattern of stonewalling. I also see that the three editors took turns reverting the closure of the Forspoken RFC. On the one hand, even if an RFC has been closed prematurely, a close challenge is preferred over edit-warring. On the other hand, the pattern of one-two-three reopening of the RFC is one of the clearest cases of a tag team that I can recall seeing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I only reverted because I thought it was vandalism from an IP that didn't have any other edits. You can see that in my edit summary. You also didn't mention the other side of dispute Sariel Xilo, OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, VestigiumLeonis and some others present. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A strange argument. "The last edit was by an unregistered editor, so I assumed it was vandalism and reverted it without reading it. " Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic-ban on the three editors from video game articles for tag teaming and stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't done those things. Please look the page statistics https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dragon_Age:_The_Veilguard
      I added 2052 bytes to talk Veilguard and 512 bytes to Forspoken talk. Sariel Xilo has added 74661 bytes making up 40% of all the talk text. ImaginesTigers and OceanHok added 22362 and 15070 making up the other 30%. If tag teaming and stonewalling are criteria then OceanHok, ImaginesTigers, Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis are engaging in. Wyll Ravengard (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really like how even in ANI, the arguments among you three are still the same. See this edit from NutmegCoffeeTea's comments. The way you are counting how many characters we have added to an article is oddly similar, don't you think? OceanHok (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I and others were already checked by MoneyTree, so you should strike these claims, which amount to personal attacks. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Moneytrees' comment explicitly doesn't rule out potential coordination and meatpuppetry. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't accuse you as a SOCK. Also, now you think accusing others as SOCK a form of PA? Then why did you have the audacity to open a SPI on experienced editors in bad faith? OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a new editor with under 50 edits total (32.5% Talk/User Talk vs 46.5% Main) & I'd request a more experienced editor to evaluate your editing pattern to determine if this WP:MEATPUPPET or not ("A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining"). In terms of total edits, both BMWF & NutmegCoffeeTea spend a large amount of time on talk pages - 48.4% Talk/User Talk vs 41.9% Main for BMWF; 32.9% Talk/User Talk vs 50.8% Main for NCT; (for me, it is 9.9% Talk/User Talk vs 83.9% Main). Their main focus seems to be a mixture of bludgeoning/stonewalling on talk pages in order to preserve their preferred version of articles. I've consistently tried various dispute resolution options - on Veilguard, that Dec '24 conversation I started would lead to a DRN that BMWF refused to participate in & when they decided the DRN consensus couldn't be valid, I started the Jan '25 RfC; on Forspoken, I even started a discussion in April 2025 called "Dispute resolution options" in hopes we could find a way towards consensus & it led to a still open RfC (started by another editor). OceanHok highlighted above that neither editor starts discussions; they just revert as much as possible & stonewall discussions started by other editors. If they won't honor the results of an RfC and jump to reverting instead of following the first step of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE (ie. contact the closing editor), then what else can we do besides some kind of ban? Most editors here have supported a TBAN over indef which would still allow them to participate in most of the project. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Text added is the metric for blugeoning because edits don't correspond to individual comments. Your chronic blugeoning is undeniable. You've written more text than the three of us combined to repeatedly argue your content points. BMWF (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming a reviewing editor will see my long comments on Veilguard are not bludgeoning & have involved a lot of different types of discussions on the page (ex: suggesting resources to a student editor, suggesting to DENY trolls who wanted to include social media "reviews", defending the inclusion of reviews by queer/trans writers). A process like DRN is great if you have bludgeoning/stonewalling concerns because it is a quite structured & moderated discussion which is why I suggested it back in December 2024 & you decided not to participate. My editing pattern shows a focus of trying various dispute resolution options to work towards consensus while yours shows a denial of accepting consensus if it doesn't match your original view. Sariel Xilo (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Excessive bludgeoning is okay because I think I'm right" isn't how it works. BMWF (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of time is spent on reminding BMWF about the importance of forming arguments based on policies, avoid argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the real meaning of policies/guidelines like WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT, which he does not understand till this day. We treated you as newbies and explained in detail how this site works and how you are expected to behave as an editor, but you have truly exhausted all of our patience. OceanHok (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating flawed interpretations of policy to force your content views is bludgeoning[185], and you also mix it with battleground and civility issues toward editors who disagree with you.[186] BMWF (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for proving my point that you cannot take any advice (or any comments that don't fit your POV). OceanHok (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, their inability to accept wrongdoing or responsibility and double-down habit of misrepresenting what others say make me lean towards indefs. It's such a polarised, immature view of the world: "everyone who disagrees with me is pro-GamerGate". It's impossible to tell if they know they're misrepresenting or if their mind is so warped that they think this is an actual conspiracy. Either way, competence is required, and there's no competence here indicating they should even be able to edit outside of the VG topic area. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in a retaliatory thread started by him, so it functions like excusing it. Kowal2701 did the same:

    I don't think it's absurd to look at someone's edit history, see they have pronouns in their bios, and assume they have liberal POVs - Kowal2701[189]

    This just seems like a continuation of his defense and a way to target editors with opposing views. BMWF (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "It functions like excusing it" Really? Communicating in a discussion does not equal endorsing everything that's being said by others in it. My message there also does not resemble Kowal's in any way, and this goalpost shifting is getting absurd. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If this isn't a WP:TAGTEAM, then I'm not sure there's ever been one, and the related essay would best be deleted. This group is making the encylopedia worse and greatly more unpleasant for editors in this area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban from video games for User:BMWF, User:Wyll Ravengard and User:NutmegCoffeeTea (if those are the 'three editors' referred to by other voters above). I'm not involved in this situation, however as an onlooker I've read through this thread (which seems to be getting a lot of traction) again and again, and what can I say, the amount of chaos that has occurred on not only the article but also its talk page is unlike anything I've seen before... (and it's all over a single sentence, am I right?) From reading through quite a number of their responses here, they don't seem to be recognising and/or working towards resolving the behavioural issues that led to this AN/I thread being created. Oh, and it looks like this has happened on other (video game) articles too and not just Forspoken, looking at some diffs above. Time for TBANs. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The overlap with one side of the content dispute here is very high. The discussion starters and a lot of editors here are from one side of the content debate. The IP reverting, which it appears the other side participated in, stopped after semi-protection so I don't see what a topic ban would resolve. BlackVulcanX (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which goes both ways. 'Clearly Gamergate-motivated', 'per BMWF'. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for video games but without prejudice toward an administrative review of other parties The evidence presented is sufficient grounds to observe these three editors engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND comportment and it would be wise for them to find something other than video games. I think a topic ban is more appropriate than a block here. However I'm not sure that these three topic bans are sufficient. From the evidence and dispute presented here it does look like two relatively entrenched battleground playersparties. I am aware of political motivations for wanting to present the success or failure of certain media products (Go woke go broke is the term I believe), and it does look like there are people who may want to downplay the success of certain games to advance a political POV. Just because those people who opposed them behaved badly does not mean that they behaved above reproach nor that they should have free rein to maintain the POV on these articles without dissent. As such I'd say that there's sufficient evidence for these three topic bans and also possibly for topic bans for Vestigum Leonis and Sariel Xilo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Simonm223, just hoping to understand your position. As the primary three under discussion are "anti-anti-woke" battlegrounders, if you are suggesting a possible TBAN for Sariel, I assume that would be because they are "anti-woke"? The positions are relatively easy to differentiate, but I can't see any pattern of that from Sariel. For example, in the Veilguard RFC they created (and voted for) a custom option to increase the lead's coverage of the game's positive reception (adding mention of representation & diversity) and earlier defended the inclusion of LGBT+ journalists. I'm never opposed to calling out bad behaviour... but if you want an admin to review, can you point to what they've done that might be advancing a political POV (and, if so, which political POV)? Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at the edit history for Forspoken I see Sariel Xilo and Vestigum Leonis engaging in edit warring as much as the three original subjects of this thread. In WP:BATTLEGROUND situations it generally takes two to tangle and what is needed is for somebody, frankly anybody to say "while I disagree with the current state of this article I'll take it to talk," instead of edit warring. This is also why I didn't suggest you or OceanHok should receive any sanctions at all. You didn't engage in edit warring and were not being disruptive. The link to "Go woke go broke" was simply making sure to contextualize the "gamergate" accusations brought up in this thread. Much like I consider edit warring over box office estimates to be silly I think edit warring over video game returns is silly regardless of which side of the edit war one is on. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: Got it, thank you for clarifying. Having a look, is that the edits from those two from June 1 and June 2? If yes, I think that was their attempt to enforce an RFC closure (which was then re-enforced by an admin)—it's what initiated the creation of this thread. I can't speak for Vestigum because I have not seen them around to the same extent, but I see extraordinary patience for Sariel in particular with this group—going to DRN with them (where BMWF didn't show up) and creating multiple RFCs. Sariel has almost 20,000 edits across the video game topic, so I wouldn't support a TBAN for them based on them attempting to enforce an RFC outcome (that's not edit warring). Sariel previously reported Vestigium for edit warring on the Forspoken article. I don't have strong views about Vestigium (if they broke a TBAN, block 'em), but Sariel's conduct has been really even-handed at every possible juncture here. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the edit summary, from 10000 feet, it did look like edit warring but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong here regarding Sariel based on your clarification. I don't support blocks for anyone here though. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. I can see that a series of IPs have – quite straightforwardly – lied in their edit summaries about the situation (I suspect precisely to mislead people glancing over the dispute). Vestigium's response below indicates their restriction was a temporary 1-month TBAN from the article, so I rescind my previous suggestion of wrongdoing by them—as with Sariel, their attempt to enforce the RFC was justified and not further edit warring (for which they seem to show immense contrition both in the immediate aftermath and today). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already acknowledged that my previous edit warring was a mistake and accepted a one-month topic block without contest. It was inappropriate behavior (partly influenced by a brief period of significant real-life stress, though I understand that this does not and should not excuse my actions at all). Since then, I have made only one revert, which involved restoring content that was unaffected by the RfC. I partially restored it once more, after which the IP edits left the sentence alone, which made it clear to me that it had been removed by mistake. If you review my editing history on Forspoken, you will see that I have included both aspects that could be deemed as "positive and negative" of the game's performance. If I had a particular agenda or bias, as some have suggested, I would not have improved articles targeted by so-called "anti-woke" editors. It would make more sense, in that case, to focus only on "negative" content, or not? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef proposal

    [edit]

    I voted above for a topic-ban because of the long-standing tag teaming, stonewalling, edit warring, assuming bad faith etc. After reviewing their comments overnight, I doubt a topic ban is sufficient and Support Indefs. The three continue to misrepresent others' arguments and cast aspersions on their motivations. They argue on each others' behalf. They insist others are their "opponents" representing pro-Gamer Gate positions with no evidence other than "they disagreed with me". They seem to be learning terminology as others highlight it in their behaviour and then accuse others of it. They ignore clear, simple statements or questions because there's nothing to fight over. If diffs evidence poor conduct, it's not the right diffs. When clearly told they did something wrong, they actually didn't and it's suspicious you didn't mention they're being targeted? When their behavioural pattern is demonstrated across multiple articles, it's some innovative type of OR to "combine diffs". No acceptance of wrongdoing on the primary, initiating issue (tag-team reverting an RFC closure). Competence is required. This behaviour is unacceptable anywhere on the site. They want to scream and thrash until others get tired of them and deferring the problem to other editor groups—who may have less stamina than the reasonably admin-active video-game wikiproject—is not a good outcome. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support per above, definitely for BMWF. I think NCT might be able to contribute to the project in other areas, her comments tend to have more substance whereas BMWF is just non-stop sealioning. Would rather a tban for her conditional on some contrition, but there’s no indication of behavioural change as of now so indefs are necessary for preventative measures Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be right about NCT's ability to contribute beyond VG culture war stuff. I think her misrepresentations in this thread are actually the worst of the lot, which is why I included her. This is all a bit exhausting so I'm going to take a step back from here and let the community decide what should be done. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Also opposing. Way too harsh and seems motivated by opinion differences. BMWF is a little wordy but not as much as editors on the other side. NCT doesn't appear to have any behavior issues in particular and neither does Wyll Ravengard. BlackVulcanX (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that you are "also" opposing when Kowal7201 supported the BMWF ban; the only other person to oppose so far is BMWF (and they opposed after you). For context, this user has edited Wikipedia 81 times, including RFC voting with BMWF, and was suggested as a possible sock of BMWF by Kowal7201. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ImaginesTigers is continuing his battleground crusade as retaliation for my detailed comment in the Veilguard RfC[190], which makes a case for removing some of the content he wrote. BMWF (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No real reply about their conduct—simply more "this is about a conduct dispute"... when I initially shared their position and changed my mind after the WT:VG discusion (that they bludgeoned). The "detail" was detailed aspersion-casting, using content nobody worked on as proof of a conspiracy... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block on all three BWMF, The next bit applies to all, with the addition of stonewalling and sealioning, of course whose particular brand of aggression, bludgeoning and gaslighting—evidenced by their every reply to these threads—is unconducive to an atmosphere of collegiality. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortuna, piggybacking off your response as my final message to say that I agree BMWF is the primary problem (hence why so much of my earlier detail is about them). I proposed blocks for the entire group because of their conduct in this thread, of which BMWF and NMC are the worst offenders. Of less concern is Wyll, who genuinely does seem to only edit on these narrow disputes (and has barely commented here except to deny that the RFC close reversion was improper). Given Wyll's current editing activity, a video-game TBAN is, in practice, an indef. I'm quite frustrated by NMC's (condescending) distortions of others' messages. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Reading the newer responses, it is apparent that NutmegCoffeeTea and (especially) BMWF are here to cancel criticisms rather than addressing the issue, and make issues worse than they already are. I will support indefinitely blocking them for being WP:SPA who are a net negative for the entire project. And if you think you made a strong case for your POV and requires "retailation", you are absolutely misguided. OceanHok (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • reiterating my support for this here per my comment above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indefs, per Fortuna. This behavior is becoming quite severe. I leave it to admin's discretion about Wyll, I am not sure he is at the same level as the other two in terms of violations. Just10A (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite blocks. We don't need editors that consider Wikipedia a culture war WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that goes for whatever side of the specific culture war they're on. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While it's clear that there is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour here going on and while it's also clear that the hands of the original three editors are not fully clean it's also pretty clear that there is a concerted effort by others with a competing WP:BATTLEGROUND stance to remove some ideological opponents. I don't think anyone should be pulling blocks here also because I don't think any blocks are necessary in this circumstance where tbans would do. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Simonm223, why do you always go with the highest, most punitive sanction for anyone that appears to skew right, but wave away any wrongdoing by anyone who skews left? You’ve made 18,500 edits, 29% in project space and only 20% in mainspace. Your incentive to edit Wikipedia seems to be political, like that time you tried to extend WP:NONAZIS to the Trumpian right (I can’t find the link now). Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't. If you look above I supported a topic ban for all three I don't believe a block is the appropriate action here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, apologies if I’m way off the mark, even still I would consider you a big net positive. Just don’t see how someone could read this thread and come to the conclusion you did. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I read the thread carefully and all the diffs even more carefully and because, being honest, I think we've been generally too quick to block editors who have blind spots in specific areas but who are a net positive elsewhere. You'll note I don't pursue ANI or AE actions against people who I disagree with ideologically but who operate within the appropriate rules of engagement of the project and even with the small number of editors I have pretty serious concerns I'm far more likely to approach them at user talk than here unless things go thoroughly sideways.
      I do think that noticeboard participation is an important thing for highly engaged editors to do. Including this one. But the only thing I am a "hanging judge" over tends to be the source reliability of newspapers. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, tbh my first run in with NCT harmed my ability to AGF a lot, was my first ANI report (and SPI), this more recently made me conscious of it. I'll stay away from CTs and noticeboards and work on it Kowal2701 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with Simon, but this is a little strong and inappropriate @Kowal2701. Simon and I disagree on (almost) everything we ever interact on, but he does genuine, good work here and at times has actually illustrated great strength of character. Let's stick to the topic at hand. Just10A (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Indefs per Fortuna (or alternatively topic bans, as I haven't voted above). There have been so many attempts to find solutions, and reactions by experienced editors and admins, but none of them got us anywhere. I do think that the comments and diffs of ImaginesTigers, OceanHok and Sariel Xilo above provide enough insight into how bad and disruptive this has been across multiple articles for months. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per my comments in the section above, I support any action taken against them. Its pretty clearly some sort of TAGTEAM/SOCK/MEAT situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef blocks Whatever this is, and it appears to be a wide open field (Sockpuppetry, undisclosed paid editing, meat puppetry, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, etc), it’s effectively undermining both the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and making trouble for the community by causing an apparent chilling effect with regards to editors and The article is in question. That’s absolutely unacceptable, and fortuitous it’s also absolutely blockable. Let’s drop the hammer and then clean up their mess, and after an appropriate period of absence (usually six months at the earliest) we can entertain any unblock requests that come up. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor using different IPs engaging in Vandalism targeting a specific person

    [edit]

    The IPs

    1. 2600:387:15:1114:0:0:0:8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. 2603:8001:9700:26:FA29:B071:8576:4BF2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 2603:8001:9d03:b506:3916:bdf9:7e86:25a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    have all been adding statements mentioning "Jordan H. Lubeoff" to pages including revision 1293525276, revision 1293525409 and revision 1293524378, linking their usage. They are also performing other disruptive edits using these IPs. Since they appear to still be active and hopping IPs, I figured this would be the best place to report it. — BE243 (about | talk) 06:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked 2600:387:15:1114:0:0:0:0/64 + 2603:8001:9D03:B506:0:0:0:0/64 + 2603:8001:9700:26:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. Let me know if more return. One of the edits added "Luboff". It's probably just a bored kid but it is damaging. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent revenge edits

    [edit]
    BLOCKED, BLOCKED, BLOCKED, AND BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) All reported accounts and IPs blocked. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 00:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am an active Wikipedia editor who also has an article about me at Nat Gertler. That page, as well as others mentioning me, have recently been the target of what appear to be revenge edits over my editing of Sam Bloch article, which is the focus of much of Achirpingbird's editing effort.

    On April 25, Achirpingbird posted a message not to my editor talk page, but to the talk page of the article about me, accusing me of bullying and calling on me to resign. She instantly deleted the message, so no harm, no foul; I bring this one up only because it relates to things that came later.

    On May 5, IP ending in 78 and then IP ending in 87 entered into a discussion regarding some poorly-sourced content I'd deleted, the latter IP including an unsupported accusation of WP:WIKIBULLYING. I reverted the second of these as the page in question is marked with an arbitration notice that forbids users not logged in from editing the page (yes, I should've reverted both of them.) Then the similarly-ranged IP ending in 1e removed sourced information crediting me on 24-hour comics and repeatedly removing both some sfandard biographical information about me (where I grew up) and positive review quotes. Having an obvious WP:COI on both pages, I placed an appropriate edit request on each page, and only once given permission, restored the information to the pages.

    Today, in the wake of my editing some non-third-party sourced statements off of the Sam Bloch page, Achirpingbird restored the material and then proceeded to the article about me and removed the positive review statements about my work, in a manner similar to the IP edits of that page. These appear to be revenge edits intended to harass me, and I would like this to be stopped. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have the patience to fully investigate at the moment but my tolerance for people using articles to annoy people is very low. I will watch Nat Gertler for a while and, after a warning, will block anyone who appears to be using an article as a weapon. If required, please ping me from article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of tolerance should go both ways, right? I have simply tried to learn from the process and remove boastful content that this user had removed from multiple pages I have created. Rather than creating talk pages to discuss first, he removes content. This person has literately goaded users to add content onto his page and I am now calling out the COI that this represents. Also look at the toxic stuff on his own talk page and you’ll see him bullying others constantly unless they approved boastful stuff. This is not revenge—these are simple wiki standards that I am holding up. I am a fairly new user and i have felt bullied by Nat, tracked by him on multiple of my pages. Begin new, I don’t know all the methods to bully someone like even this notice but let’s create a safe space for everyone. And please watch for further revenge edits on all my created pages too…or is this some sort of collusion? Achirpingbird (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed non-independent, generally self-sourced, boastful content from articles you've worked on. That is not the same as a review quote from USA Today on the page about me. And no, these are not "simply wiki standards" you're holding up. Requesting a change on an article talk page is not inappropriate, it is literally what is recommended in WP:COI for conflicted users ("COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.") If you wish to accuse me of "bullying" you, I request that you put forth the evidence. Similarly, if you want to suggest that I'll be making "further" revenge edits, put forth the evidence that I have made revenge edits against you in the past. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hackathon

    [edit]
    IP blocked for 48 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user keeps adding poorly sourced material, and the way he adds that content to the article is disruptive. I reverted his edits multiple times, and he keeps adding them. He is also adding sidenotes like this and this, which is improper. I left a message on his talk page and warned him to refrain from being disruptive, but he just ignored it. What should I do for this? Please look at the article. - ArćRèv • talk 08:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those "side notes", including "Here is your paragraph rewritten with properly formatted Wikipedia-style inline citations using reliable external references, ready for Wikipedia" and "Great! Here's your Wikipedia-style paragraph with the **correct link to Vasant Valley School**, internal Wikipedia links for key terms, and formatted references—perfect for use on a Wikipedia **user page**, **draft**, or **sandbox**" are obviously parts of AI-generated responses to prompts, and shows that the user has been using a LLM to write content. CodeTalker (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Range block re-request

    [edit]

    Re-requesting the consideration of a rangeblock I raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Range block requested on East London IP editor last week.

    This IP range has been making a consistent pattern of edits to East London articles since May 10, with a steady 18% of their edits being reverted by different local editors for being inappropriate, unexplained and/or incorrect. They've now had three level 4 warnings on different IP pages (1, 2, 3), but they switch to (or are automatically assigned) a new IP address in the range every morning. They're making no edit summaries and not engaging on any talk pages.

    The range stopped editing when I made my previous ANI post about this on the 26th, but resumed a few hours after it was archived with no response on the 29th. Belbury (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2a00:23cc:e806:e01:6685:8bb1:4cc1:c183 stopped editing immediately when I posted the ANI notification on their talk page this morning, so perhaps they are reading their talk pages.
    Two other IPs in the range have since resumed making partly erroneous edits this afternoon. Belbury (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual IPv6 addresses stopping editing, alas, doesn't mean much - they're much more variable than IPv4 addresses (to the point that even warning them is borderline pointless, as they're highly unlikely to see their talk page). I've applied an articlespace pblock to the range for a week, in hopes that one of the addresses will attempt discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MyEnchantedLeader, again

    [edit]
    MyEnchantedLeader blocked for disruptive editing effectively indistinguishable from trolling. Further WP:GRAVEDANCE is discouraged. signed, Rosguill talk 16:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So, last week I posted about User:MyEnchantedLeader, which was rapidly archived after promises of improvement. My followup that siad improvement was rather dubious didn't generate any response, so apparently my misgivings about this editor weren't shared for some reason: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#User talk:MyEnchantedLeader.

    Checking up on whether they have indeed improved, I see that their most recent edits are to Oral sex[191], where they felt the need to post a large image purported to be of themselves and a woman (without any indication that she has given permission to be featured on Wikipedia like this at all).

    Like before, do with this editor what you like. My opinion would probably be considered a personal attack on them. Fram (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That picture is with my girlfriend and she is cool with it, I honestly don't understand what your beef is with me, I make good faith edits only, please get off my back. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every issue with MyEnchantedLeader has had to do with the insertion of images. These include:
    1. Posting images without the appropriate licensing
    2. Posting images that have been modified, apparently with "AI" tools to circumvent necessary licensing
    3. Posting images that are out of place compared to their context
    4. Posting images that are duplications of other images already on the same page
    5. And now we have posting images of identifiable people engaged in a sex act for which there is no clear evidence of consent to share

    They've been cautioned by multiple editors to try and resolve these issues and instead of doing better we've seen an escalating pattern of problems. As such I propose an indefinite topic ban from images. MyEnchantedLeader can learn to contribute to WP in areas that don't involve inserting images into articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I learn if I don't make mistakes?, whenever I'm notified of an error I don't ever repeat that. MyEnchantedLeader MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And also I'd like to push back on your assertion that "I've been cautioned by multiple editors to try and resolve these issues" I haven't been cautioned, I've only been corrected which are two very separate concepts. I'm sensing some collusion or ganging up here and a nefarious agenda to silence a new voice from a different part of the world. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask how are you supposed to learn but the least time you appeared here, you promised to @Liz that you would ask questions at the Teahouse, but from your contributions it doesn't look like you've done that. And continuing to make problematic edits and only changing when brought to ANI does not appear to be a sustainable way to learn. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had only 3 edits that have been challenged, the other 100+ edits I've made since the last ANI was closed have not illicited any response which shows that I've been reading the guidelines and I naturally assumed that asking questions at the tea would be unecessary and a waste of people's time since my edits are being accepted by the the community. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been one week since the last time you were brought to WP:ANI. In that time, images you added have been reverted seven times ([192][193][194][195][196][197][198]), plus other edits too [199][200]; most of these were due to serious objections. That's the overwhelming majority of articles where you've edited! Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and simply getting into disputes alone wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that you keep making the same mistakes and, most crucially, refuse to acknowledge them is a problem. If you're still unable to understand our image policies and how you keep violating them at this point then we have to treat it like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the same mistakes, each time I was notified of an error it was for different reasons MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up to us to inform you of every single guideline here. They are all easily accessible. Your refusal to abide by the rules and guidelines is your problem alone. We can't be blamed for your actions. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been reading guidelines and almost all my edits are accepted, ocassional oversight on anything especially if you're new is not to be unexpected. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those 7 reverts are not 7 images, the first revert of an image went unexplained thus I unreverted that, then afterwards the editor who had done that revert explained why they did it in the first place, but once again you deliberately ignored that to paint a narrative that the Enchanted leader is the devil incarnate. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "And continuing to make problematic edits and only changing when brought to ANI does not appear to be a sustainable way to learn", this is simply not factual, no other other editor except for @Fram runs straight to the ANI whenever a user makes an error, the standard practice that I have observed in my short time here is that experienced editors notify newer users of errors, but for some reason that I don't understand @Fram is simply not applying that norm when it comes to this African editor. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting images that have been modified, apparently with "AI" tools to circumvent necessary licensing - not just to circumvent licencing, but also to introduce new details which weren't present in the original. This has included giving Julius Malema a pencil moustache (I can't see that he has ever had one), giving someone else a heavy beard, and adding obviously fictional flames to a video still of a politician throwing a jug of water during an argument. Belbury (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an issue that was resolved in the previous ANI, like I said in my previous reply there is clearly ganging up here, I trust that the admins will see right through the dubious attempts at censorship that is happening right here. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know about the "Adding flames to a jug of water" photo. I was assuming the mustache on Malema was to circumvent licensing requirements by making it appear to be a unique photo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That issue was resolved in the old ANI, some people are just digging stuff up because they are trying to paint a false narrative about me. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • An indefinite topic-ban from images is the bare minimum. Honestly, given that they don't seem to understand what they're doing wrong, and given how they keep insisting that they're being persecuted, I'm skeptical that they'll do any better anywhere else but at the very least they need to be prevented from adding more images if they're going to do stuff like this. The position of Photographs of identifiable people, especially as it relates to sexual content, isn't strange or surprising; it ought to be common-sense that "trust me bro, she gave consent for me to upload this image" is not sufficient. They say that they need to be given a chance to learn, but that's not a place where that should be happening; and the prosecutorial framing, coupled with the fact that their comments above seem to deny or downplay the very broad pushback their edits have received, makes me skeptical that they're actually receptive to feedback. --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm defending myself because I'm not a coward who just lets a mob with an agenda run over me, I've made it abundantly clear that I fully understand the errors once they are brought to my attention and I've never repeated any of them after I was notified but you deliberately chose to ignore something I have been vehemently repeating today because you a clearly part of that mob that's trying to silence anyone that's different from you. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not common sense that I need to provide evidence that my girlfriend has no issues with our images, it is something that needs to be taught which I have learnt today after it was brought to my attention. MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge that it's inappropriate is incredibly concerning. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      They have also added it to the top of the Zulu language article. They should probably just get a global indef. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I added that before this ANI MyEnchantedLeader (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would strongly suggest that you remove it. A type of cabinet (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah I don't like doing things too punitive on new editors but this situation is getting worse, not better, so we do need to prevent the disruption. I figured a topic ban from images was the smallest possible intervention. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading this whole thing and the subsequent replies makes me think this is either a gross attempt at trolling which we've all fallen prey to because of good-faith attempted at offering leniency the previous time, or a serious shortfall of CIR. Commons and global issues be what they are, a permaban is easily warranted here, I have yet to see a reason that this editor would make a beneficial contribution to the project that would be missed by a block; but at the very least a topic ban from adding images is a must. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether it's trolling or CIR, but any way you slice it, it's disruptive. Blocked indefinitely after reading back through the contribution history, not just images. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't wait to read the inevitable appeal. A type of cabinet (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the specific language of the (inevitable) appeal I'm going to note that I support SarekOfVulcan's administrative action. I didn't look at the non-image edit history so if there's more disruption there too that would make my proposal insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) It's here! Worgisbor (congregate) 16:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically "I can't appeal like I currently am because I am blocked. I need to be unblocked to appeal my block, even though I'm writing this as an appeal."
    Par for the course. A type of cabinet (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mobile Oasis

    [edit]
    spamublock'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mobile Oasis (talk · contribs) created this draft about a company that makes "Mobile Oasis" products. But they disclaim undisclosed paid editing on their talk page. I started this discussion here because, given the draft's promotional nature, it is unlikely that this is not undisclosed paid editing. I would like to hear what User:Mobile Oasis and others think of this. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked per WP:Username Policy violation regardless of promotional writing, given that the user continued responding without addressing the username. – robertsky (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    [edit]

    Elleishere / 14.137.47.230 deleted a paragraph from this article without providing any Edit Summary - 1

    I reverted their edit 2 and posted on their talk page asking them to please provide edit summaries, using the uw-delete1 template.

    Their reply to my message on their talk raised a number of issues, including;

    • An implication that they have pending legal action against the subject of the article, a clear Conflict of Interest
    • Accusing me of online harassment.
    • The threat of legal action against myself/wikipedia for reinstating the information.

    I disagree with their assertion that the information is inaccurate, as it can be verified as being reported by a public, reliable source. My next step would have been to invite them to discuss further via the article's talk page, following WP:DISPUTE. However, as per WP:THREAT, my understanding is that it needs to be raised here with admins instead. This is not an issue I've encountered before, so would appreciate any admin guidance.

    Thanks, Nil NZ (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The information provided by Nils NZ is known misinformation as is acknowledged in the media source that Nils NZ cited. Please inform of the correct procedure for reporting misinformation and harassment at Wikipedia for resolution accordingly. Elleishere (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the user while the legal threats remain. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like the legal threats have been taken down. » Gommeh (he/him) 16:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So it seems, but their unblock request is otherwise a sterling example of WP:NOTTHEM. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent unsourced and unreliably-sourced additions, OR, and no communication.

    [edit]

    Unnecessary Editor (talk · contribs) continually makes unsourced additions, additions which are inadequately sourced, or additions which appear to be WP:OR.

    The following is a brief selection of edits from list of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces only:

    And many more across multiple articles, many with a blend of inadequate sourcing and OR which are readily apparent from a spot-check of their contribution history.

    They've been warned and invited to discussion multiple times[201][202][203][204][205][206] but have been unresponsive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA revocation req

    [edit]
    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indef'd user insulting another editor [207]. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:DENY, I suggest not creating reports here for insults on a talk page directed towards a blocking admin. If there is really a problem, the admin most likely has the user's talk page on their watch list and can handle it quietly. If the admin who is the target of the insult, ignores the insult, then it's probably best for everyone else to do the same thing. 173.163.152.222 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Single-Purpose Accounts Inserting Unsourced Material at Drag Pageantry

    [edit]

    This was reported to DRN as a content dispute, and I would almost always prefer to have a dispute resolved as a content dispute, but it appears to be rather clearly a conduct dispute. Three accounts, two of which are single-purpose accounts, have been persistently inserting large unsourced tables at Drag pageantry:

    When User:ZimZalaBim removed the large unsourced tables, their removal was reverted by User:Rob97dc with the edit summary that they were undoing vandalism; that edit summary was a personal attack.

    The persistent insertion and re-insertion of unsourced material after being challenged is a violation of the policy of verifiability and is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have pageblocked the three accounts from Drag pageantry for persistent addition of unsourced content and edit warring. I have also semi-protected the article for a month. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism by repeated inclusion of an edit with false information at Derwick Associates

    [edit]

    Involved users:

    The user righteousskills was involved in edit warring in this article years ago see here and was asked to stop editing the article see here.

    He edited the page again claiming that I, Crystallizedcarbon, had a conflict of interest see here I responded clarifying why that was false see here.

    The edit in question was inserting false information in one paragraph, partial incomplete information on two dismissed suits in another and used Wikipedia's voice to state a disputed claim as fact in another.

    The main problem with the edit is the false statement that in 2019 the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Derwick Associates. Sources talk about two directors of the company being under investigation for a different matter. Derwick is mentioned as background, but nowhere is it claimed that the company is under any kind of investigation or that the Trump administration imposed any sanctions on it. A quick search for Derwick at the US Treasury sanctions search can certify that the unsourced claim is 100% false.

    I restored the page, but editor Darwin Naz added back the edit with the false information. I explained why the information was false and asked the editor to provide references. I also asked for WP:BRD to be followed to reach a consensus on the other problems of the proposed edit. I restored it various times informing Darwin Naz that knowingly adding falsities to an article is considered vandalism. All my repeated pleads were ignored.

    In response, I posted this request Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/05#Derwick_Associates at the page protection noticeboard. The admin Daniel Case Responded asking me to:
    "Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Preferably the latter."
    Darwin Naz added the edit with the false information again ignoring my warning, so I added the subtle vandalism template at his talk page, see here and asked him again for discussion at the talk page. Ignoring that and all the previos warnings he added the edit yet again. I have restored the article once again to the status quo revision removing the false information and opened this incident following Daniel Case's instructions. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors at this point would have been temporarily blocked for edit warring. But we are far past the 3rr line, and the article now is however admin locked by another admin. So trouts for both parties. Both of you, please use the talk page to discuss and analyse the contended content before re-adding the content. If the content is added/removed before a consensus is achieved, the editor(s) may be blocked for continuing the edit war. @Crystallizedcarbon, while you encouraged people to search government records, do note that government records are also considered as primary source. In such contentious claims, it would be better to focus on whether third party sources supports the assertion or lackof. @Righteousskills @Darwin Naz please do not blindly revert and restore content. For example, I just gone through the last paragraph that was removed and the sources failed verification. Nowhere in WaPo and Miami Herald talked about this entity being sanctioned. Related entities and persons yes, not this entity. The removal of the content may not be without basis. I have not looked at the other content that was removed and I encourage both sides to determine if the sources used can substantiate the statements or if other sources can be found, rather than throwing red herrings of COI (WP:AGF) or encouraging the use of primary sources. – robertsky (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    my bad. I saw the usernames wrongly. ​ – robertsky (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo

    [edit]

    I am here to report User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo for disruptive editing. This editor keeps changing the status of a cast member of a Tv series, without providing a source.[208][209] While this edit contains a duplicate of a reference already posted in the article.[210] This user doesn't communicate, doesn't use their edit summary and doesn't respond through their talk page. I posted a level 4 warning in their talk page, since they were just blocked last March 2025. After the warning I posted in their talkpage, the editor continues to post unreferenced content.[211]Hotwiki (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenwinch, transfer rumours and CIR isues

    [edit]

    There are some chronic issues with Greenwinch (talk · contribs)'s on-wiki behaviour.

    Per their talk page, in February 2025 they were warned for addition of unsourced content repeatedly, being told that they needed to add a source to BLPs. Every single response to this was completely incomprehensible word-salad and no acknowledgement of the need to cite (as such), a pattern which continued with their ongoing editing. The same again happened when a user politely asked them to stop updating details on Wikipedia during live matches per WP:LIVESCORES; they continued to respond with completely incomprehensible nonsense.

    It was however through their edits to football player pages that I encountered this user; edits such as this to Liam Delap claimed that the player had moved clubs, when this was patently not the case. The same for this edit to Mark Flekken - in reality Flekken had not moved clubs yet and officially moved a day later. Again, no source was provided. I left them a talk page message to ask them to stop adding this unsourced content to BLPs until they were confirmed. The response I got, of course, was even more word salad and demonstrated a further lack of understanding of Wikipedia's core policies. They continued to re-add this content to Liam Delap's page without a source in spite of this.

    I really don't like having to go to ANI over an editor who seems to be attempting to contribute in good faith, but when a response to repeated requests to add citations and stop adding content based on rumours is, and I quote, You check the details of the graphical display you going to know that has been since yesterday and the official declaration of the transfer has been attached to the channel, it's only necessary you adhere to official processes so you can have the graphical display so you can check it out. Due processes highly needed in ethics of works and moral disciplines. Wikipedia as a channel that backs scientific procedures with optimum confirmation of reliable sources., it's evident that this continued pattern of editing is a timesink for other editors. Competence is required, and repeated requests to add sources have been met with strings of words which are all-bar impossible to understand. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and disruptive edits

    [edit]

    Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) had made personal attacks, disruptive edits on Gaddar Telangana Film Awards and justified themselves making personal attacks.

    • They have called me "blind" and then removed the word. When asked above the same they have justified themselves and said, "ur blindfolded and ur a fool". See here ([[212]] and [[213]]).
    • This is not the first time, they have previously made comments related to a particular region of India on the discussion on their talk page, saying "telanganite" (referring to be favorable towards Telangana topics). This shows their bias towards a particular region. When asked about it, they have replied "I have deleted telanganite word stop bothering me", which shows their don't care attitude. (See here [[214]])
    • The edit disruption started with the edits made on Gaddar Telangana Film Awards. After my valid points, they have agreed to change the content. I have removed the "National" from the Paidi Jairaj Film Award name, as per the "only" offical document available on the internet([[215]]).
    • I have clearly said in the discussion that there is no official website for the award committee, so I have only provided the link to the document. I have never quoted Facebook or Mango News as the primary source. There is no other document available, as the above document is the official and the only one available. In the mean time, they have started making abusive comments.
    • Some of the comments are in "bold", which shows their attitude.
    • I have several times asked them to have a proper and civilized discussion, and refrain from adding abusive words. But, they are not ready to have a proper discussion.
    • During a comment they have clearly said "whatever I dont care" ([[216]]).
    • I have suggested saying "Anybody can create and edit articles here, there is no ownership. Refrain from using racist and abusive comments. This is not a social forum to discuss our opinions. Go through the guidelines and understand about article creation and others", at the discussion on my talk page. They have in reply commented "stop teaching me, you go through the guidelines at your end" and "you are abusing me Stop your nonsense in Gaddar Awards". Stop your nonsense in Gaddar Awards is in bold. Not just that, many of their comments are in "bold" ... Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have removed the entire discussion at their talk page and as said above made changes on my talk page.
    Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.facebook.com/MangoNews/posts/gaddar-telangana-film-awards-best-films-from-2014-to-2023-gaddarawards-gaddartel/1158969919592011/
    What about your disruptive edits and abuse on wikipedia. In your talk page you have been previously blocked for torturing and abusing other editors.
    Stop disrupting Gaddar Telangana Film Awards which was originally sourced and created by me and stop edit warring, and stop changing award names as you like. You have to strictly follow the award names mentioned in above document. I am citing the same reference cited by you. You have changed the content and text provided in reference document? Then what should u be called? You have indirectly abused and tortured me since 3 days. You have trotured me non verbally what about that? you have harrased me and personally attacked me repeatedly through you long meaningless replies and edit warring, and also stop changing award names as you like. You have to strictly follow the award names mentioned in above document. I am citing the same reference cited by you. You have indirectly abused and tortured me since 3 days. You have trotured me non verbally what about that? ::In the entire story you mentioned above there is only one word "blind". You have the document infront of you and your arguing what is mentioned in document is incorrect and abusing that your personal preference is the right way? then what do u call such abusive behavior? did u check ur edit war and abuse edit history in the article sourced and created by me? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To me this seems like a case of WP:CIR and/or WP:CIVIL. @Sukshmadarshinisrilanka, while I believe your edits to be in good faith, judging by the wording you used in the aforementioned discussions I doubt you were acting civilly. Respectful communication is not optional on Wikipedia. If you can't communicate respectfully and civilly with someone who disagrees with you, then it may be best to not edit here. As someone who has had to go through something similar in the past, I think a block (~24hrs) may be best.
    Additionally, for future reference you can report edit warring at WP:AN3. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). » Gommeh (he/him) 15:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the entire story you mentioned above by Jayanthkumar there is only one word "blind". You have the document infront of you and your arguing what is mentioned in document is incorrect and abusing that your personal preference is the right way? did u check ur edit war and abuse edit history in the article sourced and created by me? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On an unrelated note, Facebook is not a reliable source because it is a self-published source (see WP:RSPFACEBOOK) and would not have been accepted anyway. Thought I should let you know. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then kindly block the article from editing for 3 weeks, with last version contributed by me as I am the original sourcer of the article. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Creating the page doesn’t give you any special privileges regarding the page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    then move the article to draft space, or delete the article, I have to face accusations from fellow editor for creating and sourcing articles? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User:Sukshmadarshinisrilanka, you are facing charges of being uncivil, and I will add that this dismissive gen-z style talk is also a sign of disrespect. Please use an appropriate level of formality. No, we are not going to lock in your desired version of an article just cause you're asking for it. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your words. Will be careful and use appropriate level of formality as advised by you. I would request to move it to draft space instead if deletion of article is not viable. I am not saying my version I am saying original first version created by me and then moving to draft space. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't do that as I am not an admin. Next, I'd like to let you know that you don't own any articles you write. Other people have just as much of a right to contribute to them as you do. Also, you should be a little more careful about your wording — "torture" is a loaded word and can be interpreted as a personal attack which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Good way to get your account blocked, so don't do it. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    then move the article to draft space, or delete the article, I have to face accusations from fellow editor for creating and sourcing articles? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I told that respected editor, that it is not reliable source, still I agreed to retain what exactly was mentioned in the cited document. Again he denies that document which he originally cited, and instead of coming to consensus with me by agreeing on common point keeps on messaging me? he keeps on indulging himself in edit warring and article abuse? is this the right behavior? Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are supposed to discuss on the talk page in situations like this, not get into a heated argument. Trouble is, I think they may have been dissuaded from having a respectful discussion with you due to your past comments, e.g.
    • "you are abusing me",
    • "STOP YOUR NON SENSE AND STOP ABUSING ME",
    • "are you blind?", etc.

    Those are all worded rather disrespectfully if you ask me. A more respectful way to word it would have been something like "Hello, can you explain the changes you made to X page? I'd like to discuss them" followed by the reasons why you made the change and any reliable sources you have on hand. In situations like this, it's important to take a breather and to assume that the other editor is acting in good faith. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He has tortured me since 3 days on the article meticulously sourced and contributed by me what about that. For edit warring he should be blocked too for 24 hrs. Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not torture. Reading this juvenile back and forth, and y'all's somewhat inept and combative edit summaries, that's closer to torture. I'm going to block the both of you from editing the article: you may both true to be civil adults who discuss things on the talk page, and I am hoping that this discussion will attract knowledgeable and seasoned editors--who may also help decide whether the topic is notable in the first place. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you and will be extremely civil going forward.Sukshmadarshinisrilanka (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well User:Jayanthkumar123, that's interesting: you are already partially blocked from editing RRR, indefinitely, and I added this article to it. That's in part a technical matter, since I don't think I can add a temporary p-block to another article (your opponent is p-blocked for a week), but that's also kind of right, since you seem to have a history of disruptive behavior. If I were you, I'd be more careful. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies interesting thought. I wonder if the protection bot can handle pblocks of varying lengths as well... Hmm.. – robertsky (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)~[reply]
    Robertsky, if this were another case (with a p-block for arbitration reasons for instance) I'd entertain that question (to pass it on to someone who's technically capable) but in this case I don't care. The editor can always, after a week has passed and they have shown they can edit in a collegial manner, place an unblock request for one or even for both. Thanks, Drmies (talk)
    Thanks @Drmies. @Jayanthkumar123 and @Sukshmadarshinisrilanka, if you have another issue like this in the future, please post it at WP:AN3. Thanks. » Gommeh (he/him) 15:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Icewhiz is planning to end Wikipedia

    [edit]
    Hatting because stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Usually I wouldn't post something like this to a public board but this is too serious to not mention here. Icewhiz just told me that Wikipedia has 24 hours left. I'm shaking right now and we need to back up everything on this website if it is actually going down permanently. I can't say anything about what he told me except that he's going to expose Wikipedia's connections to the Albanian mafia after it goes down. Btw we share a discord server. Quivered (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you ask him to spare the Star Trek articles please as I like looking up old episodes on there. — Czello (music) 16:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS ISN'T A FUCKING JOKE. WIKIPEDIA MIGHT DIE. FOREVER. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:B4EB:BFA2:D19F:EF72 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1293781433"